Builder laid out the house
We checked the foundation boxing and said "It is a little close to the boundary"
Then the City said "Move it"
But in the meantime the builder had poured concrete
Went back to look at it again today, and found one wall had been moved - sort of...
that exposed rebar is gonna be a problem someday
Does it clear now?
The upper portion of the pour would be a little clearer, but the base of the pour...?ÿ not so much.?ÿ You weren't supposed to visit the site until they spread a little topsoil?ÿ?ÿ ??ÿ
Is that stem wall or a monolithic foundation? From my experiences in Florida if it's a stem wall, not only will the walls crack but also the floor slab subsequent construction caused by settlement.?ÿ
It must be a slab, and the rebar would be for block above. Crappy work, verry crappy.
The rebar will be an obstacle for the first block (masons will grumble but no huge deal). But the rebar being on the face of the footer is real bad, it will rust badly.
@jimcox what part of the world are you in?
Peter is right on all counts.
Its a two pour slab.
There's a ring foundation filled with compacted gravel and a slab still to go on top of that, hence the exterior boxing.
The reinforcing is for a block wall along the side of the garage closest to the neighbour. The bars have been left with almost no cover and I would expect them to deteriorate rapidly.
It will be interesting to see if the city inspectors let them away with this - I wouldn't
And in answer to Peter's question, this is Christchurch, New Zealand
?ÿ
?ÿ
Hmmm, there may also be a rule about being allowed only one crank of the bars, i.e you can't crank em back.
They should just abandon the block wall idea and frame it like the rest.
They should just abandon the block wall idea and frame it like the rest.
Probably required for fire protection.
Common sense is not common when "codes" are involved
Chipping, sandblasting and hand packing a sticky mix is not usually considered routine maintenence...
