Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

[Guest guest]

Will:

I concur.........add another 30-yrs of construction talking.

On 10/31/08 6:12 AM, " midsouthbuilders " <no_reply > wrote:

Gentlemen:

Unless there is structural damage due to water intrusion, it is less

expensive to gut the home and remediated than it is to plough under

and rebuild. Finish materials have dropped significantly in price

these days. Mechanical, electrical, plumbing are still very high. I

do not believe the numbers will be in favor of a complete rebuild.

That's 40 years of construction talking...

Will

>

> Hello ,

> I worked on two projects where the cost estimates for repair were a

push or

> very close to new construction. They were both buildings that had

been left

> wet for an extended period of time and were very very moldy, top to

bottom.

> One was old and not well built and the remediators did not want to

get stuck

> with all the code and other rebuild problems. Owner took partial

payment on

> insurance and demolished the house. Not sure if he rebuilt or sold

the

> land.

>

> The other was newer and had water in the HVAC for some time and the

whole

> house was damp. Young child was allergic to mold and the parents

were

> requiring very very clean and generally wanted a new house.

Remediators all

> bid very high and the whole thing was a close call on the cost

estimates

> provided for repair. The owner did not want a repaired house, he

wanted

> original construction. It was a long drawn out event. Lawyers got

plenty

> of money over the 3 years.

>

> Sometimes the clear land is worth more than the land and moldy

building.

> These were two rare cases. Most are very repairable. Some

buildings are

> built wrong need to get re-built anyway. The repair contractors

don't want

> to take on the liability of the first contractor, so you may end up

demo

> most of the poor construction.

>

> There was a case in Oregon where the remediation was about

$1,000,000 on a

> $400,000 house. It basically had to be done twice. The water

repair was

> difficult and got done wrong the first time. It got fixed but may

have not

> been worth it.

>

> Just some thoughts.

>

> Due to the air pollution issues, none should get burned down.

>

> Bradley Harr

> Sr. Environmental Scientist

> Summit Environmental, Inc.

>

[Guest guest]

,

No problem. Glad you " got " it and enjoyed it. I sometimes aim to advise,

sometimes to rant, and other times aim to amuse.

Chuck

RE: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

>>

>>> > Hello ,

>>> > I worked on two projects where the cost estimates for repair were a

>>> > push

>>> > or

>>> > very close to new construction. They were both buildings that had

>>> > been

>>> > left

>>> > wet for an extended period of time and were very very moldy, top to

>>> > bottom.

>>> > One was old and not well built and the remediators did not want to get

>>> > stuck

>>> > with all the code and other rebuild problems. Owner took partial

>>> > payment

>>> > on

>>> > insurance and demolished the house. Not sure if he rebuilt or sold

>>> > the

>>> > land.

>>> >

>>> > The other was newer and had water in the HVAC for some time and the

>>> > whole

>>> > house was damp. Young child was allergic to mold and the parents were

>>> > requiring very very clean and generally wanted a new house.

>>> > Remediators

>>> > all

>>> > bid very high and the whole thing was a close call on the cost

>>> > estimates

>>> > provided for repair. The owner did not want a repaired house, he

>>> > wanted

>>> > original construction. It was a long drawn out event. Lawyers got

>>> > plenty

>>> > of money over the 3 years.

>>> >

>>> > Sometimes the clear land is worth more than the land and moldy

>>> > building.

>>> > These were two rare cases. Most are very repairable. Some buildings

>>> > are

>>> > built wrong need to get re-built anyway. The repair contractors don't

>>> > want

>>> > to take on the liability of the first contractor, so you may end up

>>> > demo

>>> > most of the poor construction.

>>> >

>>> > There was a case in Oregon where the remediation was about $1,000,000

>>> > on

>>> > a

>>> > $400,000 house. It basically had to be done twice. The water repair

>>> > was

>>> > difficult and got done wrong the first time. It got fixed but may

>>> > have

>>> > not

>>> > been worth it.

>>> >

>>> > Just some thoughts.

>>> >

>>> > Due to the air pollution issues, none should get burned down.

>>> >

>>> > Bradley Harr

>>> > Sr. Environmental Scientist

>>> > Summit Environmental, Inc.

>>> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Semco,

Thank you very much for posting the link to your video. Without visiting

the site personally, I can be only 99.9% sure that you need to tear down the

house. Your video certainly makes a compelling case, and the contractor

should be shot.

From what you provided, I agree that your only sensible option is to tear

down the house and start over. I'm truly sorry for your situation, and wish

you the best as you proceed through your living hell, hopefully to a

satisfactory eventual resolution.

God bless you and your tenacity.

Regards,

Chuck Reaney

Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

It is a very emotional thing. Devestating. I tried to remediate twice and

the mold just

came back with a vengence both times.

My life if in that house, I have lost my health. I need to tear it down and

build a safer

place to iive.

If you are interested, here is a youtube video of my home.

> >

> > In a message dated 10/30/2008 4:57:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> > healthyhouse@ writes:

> > > No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need

> to burn

> > > down a house because of mold contamination.

> > > If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is

> the real

> > > motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme

> reaction.

> > > Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

> > > We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less

> than

> > > burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > ,

> >

> > Usually true, but not always. Demo vs. burning issues aside with

> respect to

> > replacing the house, the value of the structure and its systems

> need to be

> > taken into account, as does the value of the lot. When the house

> needs to be

> > gutted, cleaned (assuming chemical offgassing, which can't

> be " cleaned " , isn't an

> > issue), and put back together and the plumbing, electrical, and

> mechanical

> > systems are in poor condition and need upgrading, it is a no-

> brainer to knock

> > the house down and rebuild on the same foundation (if the

> foundation is good).

> > It's cheaper and easier to start rebuilding from scratch. Houses

> aren't built

> > to last forever.

> >

> > When people can't live in their house due to contamination,

> sometimes the

> > only way to ensure that contaminants are completely removed is to

> remove the

> > whole house. Most of the time people just sell it (with a

> disclosure statement)

> > because the next occupants may not have any problem.

> >

> > Steve Temes

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> It is a very emotional thing. Devestating. I tried to remediate

twice and the mold just

> came back with a vengence both times.

>

> My life if in that house, I have lost my health. I need to tear it

down and build a safer

> place to iive.

>

> If you are interested, here is a youtube video of my home.

>

Semco. Terrific video, of a horrible circumstance to be stuck in.

As you can see, there is a wide variability to the " professional

response " that assigns a different degrees of credibility to complaints

of the effects of mold.

No two professionals appear to have that exact same " cut-off " point,

beyond which, the expressions are relegated to lack of reasonableness,

and " hysteria " .

The primary means of determining the professionals personal view of

where that point is, is to " push his buttons " a bit.

When their response stops short of matching the seriousness that you

attach to the problem, you must decide for yourself if that

professionals advice will be sufficient for your situation.

-MW

[Guest guest]

I have tried to remediate this house twice already. The estimates on rebuilding

are right in

line with remediation without the stigma associated with an environmentally

damaged

house. Plus, no builder will warranty their work on the house.

ly, I would not consider another remediation due to intense health problems

the

current house has caused me.

And, I am less concerned at the " cheaper " way to go rather than the " better " way

to go.

I think I would rather take my chances with a new, better built, safer house

with a

warranty, than again trying to fix an existing substandard structure.

s

> >> >

> >> > Hello ,

> >> > I worked on two projects where the cost estimates for repair were a

> > push or

> >> > very close to new construction. They were both buildings that had

> > been left

> >> > wet for an extended period of time and were very very moldy, top to

> > bottom.

> >> > One was old and not well built and the remediators did not want to

> > get stuck

> >> > with all the code and other rebuild problems. Owner took partial

> > payment on

> >> > insurance and demolished the house. Not sure if he rebuilt or sold

> > the

> >> > land.

> >> >

> >> > The other was newer and had water in the HVAC for some time and the

> > whole

> >> > house was damp. Young child was allergic to mold and the parents

> > were

> >> > requiring very very clean and generally wanted a new house.

> > Remediators all

> >> > bid very high and the whole thing was a close call on the cost

> > estimates

> >> > provided for repair. The owner did not want a repaired house, he

> > wanted

> >> > original construction. It was a long drawn out event. Lawyers got

> > plenty

> >> > of money over the 3 years.

> >> >

> >> > Sometimes the clear land is worth more than the land and moldy

> > building.

> >> > These were two rare cases. Most are very repairable. Some

> > buildings are

> >> > built wrong need to get re-built anyway. The repair contractors

> > don't want

> >> > to take on the liability of the first contractor, so you may end up

> > demo

> >> > most of the poor construction.

> >> >

> >> > There was a case in Oregon where the remediation was about

> > $1,000,000 on a

> >> > $400,000 house. It basically had to be done twice. The water

> > repair was

> >> > difficult and got done wrong the first time. It got fixed but may

> > have not

> >> > been worth it.

> >> >

> >> > Just some thoughts.

> >> >

> >> > Due to the air pollution issues, none should get burned down.

> >> >

> >> > Bradley Harr

> >> > Sr. Environmental Scientist

> >> > Summit Environmental, Inc.

> >> >

>

[Guest guest]

The house is so contaminated that no one can breath when they enter it.

Disclosure if the

law in my state, however, the appraisal of the house came back as lot value

only.

I am taking the foundation out as well. Want no memories of this terrible

situation.

>

> In a message dated 10/30/2008 4:57:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> healthyhouse@... writes:

> > No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need to burn

> > down a house because of mold contamination.

> > If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is the real

> > motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme reaction.

> > Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

> > We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less than

> > burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

> >

> >

>

> ,

>

> Usually true, but not always. Demo vs. burning issues aside with respect to

> replacing the house, the value of the structure and its systems need to be

> taken into account, as does the value of the lot. When the house needs to be

> gutted, cleaned (assuming chemical offgassing, which can't be " cleaned " , isn't

an

> issue), and put back together and the plumbing, electrical, and mechanical

> systems are in poor condition and need upgrading, it is a no-brainer to knock

> the house down and rebuild on the same foundation (if the foundation is good).

> It's cheaper and easier to start rebuilding from scratch. Houses aren't built

> to last forever.

>

> When people can't live in their house due to contamination, sometimes the

> only way to ensure that contaminants are completely removed is to remove the

> whole house. Most of the time people just sell it (with a disclosure

statement)

> because the next occupants may not have any problem.

>

> Steve Temes

>

[Guest guest]

Different house, different architect, different builder and house built to code.

The main problem with my old house if it was built with moisture barrier missing

in many places. Moisture barrier is at the least, minimum code where I live.

We can't find all the places the moisture continues to enter the house, so the

house is a goner. No more chances with me.

>

> Subject: Re: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

> To: iequality

> Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 10:08 AM

> Semco

> If you do not solve the moisture problems the mold comes

> back. If the mold came back the moisture problems were not

> solved.

>

> What are you going to do to ensure that this does not

> happen in the new house; when you do not understand the

> cause of the last problem you may build it into the new

> house as well?

> Jim H. White

>

> Re: Tearing down house - Need advice

> please

>

>

> It is a very emotional thing. Devestating. I tried to

> remediate twice and the mold just

> came back with a vengence both times.

>

> My life if in that house, I have lost my health. I need

> to tear it down and build a safer

> place to iive.

>

> If you are interested, here is a youtube video of my

> home.

>

>

> > >

> > > In a message dated 10/30/2008 4:57:17 PM

> Eastern Daylight Time,

> > > healthyhouse@ writes:

> > > > No one yet has answered my questions about

> why anyone would need

> > to burn

> > > > down a house because of mold

> contamination.

> > > > If there is no rational reason, then we

> need to wonder what is

> > the real

> > > > motivation. And why would anyone agree to

> pay for such an extreme

> > reaction.

> > > > Maybe publicity? Irrational fear?

> Misinformation?

> > > > We can clean almost anything - or repair

> or replace it, for less

> > than

> > > > burning it down and re-building the whole

> house. Right?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > ,

> > >

> > > Usually true, but not always. Demo vs. burning

> issues aside with

> > respect to

> > > replacing the house, the value of the structure

> and its systems

> > need to be

> > > taken into account, as does the value of the

> lot. When the house

> > needs to be

> > > gutted, cleaned (assuming chemical offgassing,

> which can't

> > be " cleaned " , isn't an

> > > issue), and put back together and the plumbing,

> electrical, and

> > mechanical

> > > systems are in poor condition and need

> upgrading, it is a no-

> > brainer to knock

> > > the house down and rebuild on the same

> foundation (if the

> > foundation is good).

> > > It's cheaper and easier to start rebuilding

> from scratch. Houses

> > aren't built

> > > to last forever.

> > >

> > > When people can't live in their house due

> to contamination,

> > sometimes the

> > > only way to ensure that contaminants are

> completely removed is to

> > remove the

> > > whole house. Most of the time people just sell

> it (with a

> > disclosure statement)

> > > because the next occupants may not have any

> problem.

> > >

> > > Steve Temes

> > >

> >

[Guest guest]

THANK YOU WIL!!! My point exactly.

Finally, someone with sense and experience responding! And while you have more years building than any of us, it really doesn't take 3 decades of experience to do the math.

I have seen too many scams for cleaning and pricing of mold cleanup. ANYONE who says you need to tear down (aka burn down) a house doesn't have a clue how to price a project.

Thank you.

PS< Chuck! I'm still humming that dang talking heads song every time i read your post! '....out house, in the middle of the streeet...."

Thanx a million.

PPS, I'm one that actually appreciates the reference, humourless or not.

Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!

[Guest guest]

YEs. Burning down a house that doesn't require structural repais would be in the category of 'over reaction'.

Period.

However, I think Don and Steve and shown that some smaller, older, dilapitated homes may cost more than the house was worth. BUT NOT more than tearing down and rebuilding. There is a difference between existing market value of an old home and the cost of rebuilding. The demo/repair/putback can land somewhere in between those two values. A

By the way, what ever happened to the original poster? he disappeared and left us holding the bag on this topic, he never justified his decision, did he?

Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!

[Guest guest]

, Will, others, and the originator,

While I generally agree that tearing down a house is almost always unnecessary, are there exceptions?

For example, I've found a number of new structures which appear to have been built wet. There are not gross areas of visible mold or water damage but there vast, non-continguous locations of water marks and other visible suspecious areas. Surface sampling of affected vs non-affected areas show significant amplification. Lacking structural damage the issue would appear to be health effects.

My question: If the occupant is reactive and the removal of the mold (visible and non-visible) in the obvious locations isn't sufficient for them to be well, should the remaining areas of mold be removed? That is, most of the house including the outside sheathing (nearly a complete tearing down).

If the current owner/occupant is able to sell instead, what disclosure is recommended to protect the new owner but retain the value of the house?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> THANK YOU WIL!!! My point exactly.

> Finally, someone with sense and experience responding! And while you have more years building

> than any of us, it really doesn't take 3 decades of experience to do the math.

> I have seen too many scams for cleaning and pricing of mold cleanup. ANYONE who says you

> need to tear down (aka burn down) a house doesn't have a clue how to price a project.

>

> Thank you.

>

>

>

> PS< Chuck! I'm still humming that dang talking heads song every time i read your post! '....out

> house, in the middle of the streeet.... "

>

> Thanx a million.

>

> PPS, I'm one that actually appreciates the reference, humourless or not.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!

>

[Guest guest]

What about one of the most expensive " buildings " ever constructed, the

Mir space station,

which had to be burned up because the combination of radiation and

fungi was breeding

super mold that could and was eating plastic?

Actually, I lived in a buildng that IMO, might have been a good

candidate for this award,

but actually, it was probably repairable, it would simply have cost a

lot.. a significant fraction

of its cost..

Reasons why it was so unhealthy..

three story 100+ year old ian apartment building, 6 apartments

with uninhabited basement

Basement significantly below street level.

Street consisting of very long (1/4 mile) hill with approximately

15-20 degree slope, draining

five blocks of sidewalk

Driveway leading to basement leading directly from street, channeling

high volume of water from said sidewalk

Basement flooding for weeks at a time many times each rainy season.

Sheetrock wicking water up from floodwater

storm sewers also overflowing.

Possible hollowed out cavity beneath building, building built

approximately near (above?) site of old stream

Fire 30 years before, resulting in roof possibly being missing for some time

fire damage on walls painted over, not removed, insides of walls still charred

Front of building containing large open window at basement level, missing glass.

Ocean only a few miles away, strong west wind predominating

Basement rooms having earth floors and wood walls, (old stable?) or

concrete floors with sheetrock walls

or old rotten wood floors with wooden walls

Many years of unlicensed contractor work of all possible kinds.

Building sitting on hill, building settling downward, building

tilting, earthquake country, cracks in walls.

Strong wind off ocean

Stack effect

Rain, x 100 years.

Sheetrock

Plumbing leaks

Flat roof

lack of regular roof repair

Carpets + rain in common hallway

Structural members sitting in or very near standing brown water for

weeks at a time

> I have yet to be aware of any building that is contaminated

> to the extent that the choice making the best economic sense

> is to demolish the structure (this includes builders

> constructing basements without adequate membrane or drainage

> for the perimeter). In the instance here, we clearly have an

> example of an emotional decision taking precedence over a

> sensible one and while the household insurer may deem it

> acceptable to provide a minor contribution to demolition and

> rebuild, the majority of costs should be provided by those

> making the emotive decision.

[Guest guest]

What a wonderful old building, full of opportunity.

Last year I was involved in a heritage restoration of an 80 year old

building. It had significant structural destabilisation, but due to

its significance had to be remedied in spite of the remedial cost

being greater than replacement (which makes it an emotive decision to

retain).

Where we are located, your 100 year old building would probably be

heritage listed and the assessors would track down the development

planners who allowed the deficiencies in drainage, as well as the

unlicensed contractors, etc. and then seek compensation for all the

required remediation.

If the structural elements have stayed up there for 100 years with

all that abuse, it indicates that it is reasonably sound. So you were

to refurbish, you'd gut the building back to the bare structure, fix

the drainage issues sand-off the timber floors and refinish the

interior lining with firecheck or equivalent to reflect current code

segregation, etc. This would probably still be less cost than

demolition and reconstruction. In fact if you were to demolish and

reconstruct - you'd still need to fix the street drainage (capture

and deluge pit) which seems to be the biggest foe in making the

building long term habitable, so just doing that, relining and

replacing affected building elements (rotted wallboard, timbers)

would probably achieve a reasonable outcome.

We have been very successful in identifying affected materials using

our thermographic camera (0.09degC resolution) which readilly

identifies microbial activity (it's great for a whole lot of other

things we do as well).

>

> What about one of the most expensive " buildings " ever constructed,

the

> Mir space station,

> which had to be burned up because the combination of radiation and

> fungi was breeding

> super mold that could and was eating plastic?

>

> Actually, I lived in a buildng that IMO, might have been a good

> candidate for this award,

> but actually, it was probably repairable, it would simply have cost

a

> lot.. a significant fraction

> of its cost..

>

> Reasons why it was so unhealthy..

>

> three story 100+ year old ian apartment building, 6 apartments

> with uninhabited basement

> Basement significantly below street level.

> Street consisting of very long (1/4 mile) hill with approximately

> 15-20 degree slope, draining

> five blocks of sidewalk

> Driveway leading to basement leading directly from street,

channeling

> high volume of water from said sidewalk

> Basement flooding for weeks at a time many times each rainy season.

> Sheetrock wicking water up from floodwater

> storm sewers also overflowing.

> Possible hollowed out cavity beneath building, building built

> approximately near (above?) site of old stream

> Fire 30 years before, resulting in roof possibly being missing for

some time

> fire damage on walls painted over, not removed, insides of walls

still charred

> Front of building containing large open window at basement level,

missing glass.

> Ocean only a few miles away, strong west wind predominating

> Basement rooms having earth floors and wood walls, (old stable?) or

> concrete floors with sheetrock walls

> or old rotten wood floors with wooden walls

> Many years of unlicensed contractor work of all possible kinds.

> Building sitting on hill, building settling downward, building

> tilting, earthquake country, cracks in walls.

> Strong wind off ocean

> Stack effect

> Rain, x 100 years.

> Sheetrock

> Plumbing leaks

> Flat roof

> lack of regular roof repair

> Carpets + rain in common hallway

> Structural members sitting in or very near standing brown water for

> weeks at a time

>

> > I have yet to be aware of any building that is contaminated

> > to the extent that the choice making the best economic sense

> > is to demolish the structure (this includes builders

> > constructing basements without adequate membrane or drainage

> > for the perimeter). In the instance here, we clearly have an

> > example of an emotional decision taking precedence over a

> > sensible one and while the household insurer may deem it

> > acceptable to provide a minor contribution to demolition and

> > rebuild, the majority of costs should be provided by those

> > making the emotive decision.

>

[Guest guest]

Carl:

We did some rebuild work in NOLA post-Katrina. We rebuilt 16 homes

several of which were under 8+ feet of water without the need to

bulldoze them to the ground.

After demo, structural components were evaluated to determine if

further work or demo was necessary. Once decontamination was

performed, extensive environmental testing was conducted to verify

the decon process. After the structure passed environmental testing,

we began rebuilding.

Rebuilding even with a lot of electrical and HVAC replacement was

still less expensive than total teardown. To my knowledge, these

homes and occupants are healthy and happy to this very day.

Are there homes that are poorly built (bad bones) that should be

dozed? Sure.

It is more cost effective to teardown than to correct deficiencies?

Not in my experience.

Should homes be dozed in order to remove mold? Not in my experience.

The numbers simply don't work unless someone is being taken advantage

of by the remediator. (Hint, Hint)

Will

>

> , Will, others, and the originator,

>

> While I generally agree that tearing down a house is almost

> always unnecessary, are there exceptions?

>

> For example, I've found a number of new structures which

> appear to have been built wet. There are not gross areas of

> visible mold or water damage but there vast, non-continguous

> locations of water marks and other visible suspecious areas.

> Surface sampling of affected vs non-affected areas show

> significant amplification. Lacking structural damage the issue

> would appear to be health effects.

>

> My question: If the occupant is reactive and the removal of the

> mold (visible and non-visible) in the obvious locations isn't

> sufficient for them to be well, should the remaining areas of mold

> be removed? That is, most of the house including the outside

> sheathing (nearly a complete tearing down).

>

> If the current owner/occupant is able to sell instead, what

> disclosure is recommended to protect the new owner but retain

> the value of the house?

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> >

> > THANK YOU WIL!!! My point exactly.

> > Finally, someone with sense and experience responding! And while

you have more years building

> > than any of us, it really doesn't take 3 decades of experience to

do the math.

> > I have seen too many scams for cleaning and pricing of mold

cleanup. ANYONE who says you

> > need to tear down (aka burn down) a house doesn't have a clue how

to price a project.

> >

> > Thank you.

> >

> >

> >

> > PS< Chuck! I'm still humming that dang talking heads song every

time i read your post! '....out

> > house, in the middle of the streeet.... "

> >

> > Thanx a million.

> >

> > PPS, I'm one that actually appreciates the reference, humourless

or not.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5

Travel Deals!

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Carl:

One other point - very few homes built in the US are built in totally

dry climates. We build in the south and virtually EVERY house built

here is built during periods of rain. Then we also have the little

problem of humidity that typically reached 90% approximately 75% of

the year.

Water staining and damage happens to every structure in the south

during construction. I cannot tell you how many basements

(residential and commercial) that must be pumped out during

construction. It is the norm here.

The solution is to simply monitor water intrusion during

construction. Prior to insulation, we have every home we build

inspected for mold and decontaminated when found. While this summer

was unusually dry in several areas, we still find plenty of mold in

the final inspection prior to insulation.

This is also why many new homes have a mold problem before occupancy.

It was built into the home during construction and was ignored by

everyone. We also find a lot of vapor barrier related issues where

moisture is allowed to buildup on cellulose materials. Few builders

understand building science and the implications of PERM ratings and

insulation.

Anyhow, this is why we pay attention to building science and air

quality.

Will

>

> , Will, others, and the originator,

>

> While I generally agree that tearing down a house is almost

> always unnecessary, are there exceptions?

>

> For example, I've found a number of new structures which

> appear to have been built wet. There are not gross areas of

> visible mold or water damage but there vast, non-continguous

> locations of water marks and other visible suspecious areas.

> Surface sampling of affected vs non-affected areas show

> significant amplification. Lacking structural damage the issue

> would appear to be health effects.

>

> My question: If the occupant is reactive and the removal of the

> mold (visible and non-visible) in the obvious locations isn't

> sufficient for them to be well, should the remaining areas of mold

> be removed? That is, most of the house including the outside

> sheathing (nearly a complete tearing down).

>

> If the current owner/occupant is able to sell instead, what

> disclosure is recommended to protect the new owner but retain

> the value of the house?

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> >

> > THANK YOU WIL!!! My point exactly.

> > Finally, someone with sense and experience responding! And while

you have more years building

> > than any of us, it really doesn't take 3 decades of experience to

do the math.

> > I have seen too many scams for cleaning and pricing of mold

cleanup. ANYONE who says you

> > need to tear down (aka burn down) a house doesn't have a clue how

to price a project.

> >

> > Thank you.

> >

> >

> >

> > PS< Chuck! I'm still humming that dang talking heads song every

time i read your post! '....out

> > house, in the middle of the streeet.... "

> >

> > Thanx a million.

> >

> > PPS, I'm one that actually appreciates the reference, humourless

or not.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5

Travel Deals!

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not there anymore.. I'm long gone.

The building was a rental is one among many, all built at the same

approximate time.

around 100 years ago.. But all of the other buildings in the

neighborhood were better maintained.

You can even see the differences from space...

> What a wonderful old building, full of opportunity.

....