Garage building question

I stopped reading this thread when i saw this brilliance.

bentwrench wrote: No No No. Keep the 2 car garage Build a 3 car shop in the back!

spin_out wrote: I stopped reading this thread when i saw this brilliance.

bentwrench wrote: No No No. Keep the 2 car garage Build a 3 car shop in the back!

No room.

Place in question is apparently under contract now anyways, so moot point.

If anyone is wondering, we looked at another place last night that had a garage with room for about 4 miatas (or a TSX, Miata, and maybe a 3 series). Just a little out of our comfort zone with price though, so we're going to pass on it.

Ian F wrote:

dyintorace wrote:

slefain wrote: Since the garage isn't built yet, I highly suggest having a low cinder block wall built first, then place the wood structure on top. My garage sits on a 4-block high wall and it is awesome. Sure you need to have a brick mason lay the block, but after that the framing crew works as normal. The previous owner who had the garage built was a little wacky, but sitting the garage on blocks was brilliant.

Why? I ask because I hope to build a detached 3 car garage in the not too distant future.

For one, it allows for a taller ceiling height while still using common (cheaper) lumber. Second, it keeps the wood and wall covering a nice distance from potential water sources.

Interesting! And good to know!

dyintorace wrote:

Ian F wrote:

dyintorace wrote:

slefain wrote: Since the garage isn't built yet, I highly suggest having a low cinder block wall built first, then place the wood structure on top. My garage sits on a 4-block high wall and it is awesome. Sure you need to have a brick mason lay the block, but after that the framing crew works as normal. The previous owner who had the garage built was a little wacky, but sitting the garage on blocks was brilliant.

Why? I ask because I hope to build a detached 3 car garage in the not too distant future.

For one, it allows for a taller ceiling height while still using common (cheaper) lumber. Second, it keeps the wood and wall covering a nice distance from potential water sources.

Interesting! And good to know!

Bingo! I have zero water damage in the walls, and zero termites. The block walls also give a solid "dumbass proofing" around the entire perimeter. I can roll my engine hoist up against the wall and not worry about damaging anything. Park the lawn mower, who cares if I bump the wall, no damage done. The half height wall also makes is stupid easy to wire since the outlets are all at chest level within the wooden part of the walls.

But the main bonus is the height. Without the extra block height I'd have WAY less storage space than I do now. I have a 8x8 foot loft above on car, and still have enough room for a 4-post lift on the other side. Above the rollup door I have a 4' wide loft that spans the entire width of the garage, INSANE amount of storage. Back in the work area I have all kinds of crap hung from the walls that would be banging into my head at normal garage height.

slefain wrote: Bingo! I have zero water damage in the walls, and zero termites. The block walls also give a solid "dumbass proofing" around the entire perimeter. I can roll my engine hoist up against the wall and not worry about damaging anything. Park the lawn mower, who cares if I bump the wall, no damage done. The half height wall also makes is stupid easy to wire since the outlets are all at chest level within the wooden part of the walls. But the main bonus is the height. Without the extra block height I'd have WAY less storage space than I do now. I have a 8x8 foot loft above on car, and still have enough room for a 4-post lift on the other side. Above the rollup door I have a 4' wide loft that spans the entire width of the garage, INSANE amount of storage. Back in the work area I have all kinds of crap hung from the walls that would be banging into my head at normal garage height.

I would love to see some pictures. Do you have a "build" thread anywhere??

Dr. Hess wrote: I discussed extending a slab once with my civil engineer (Ret.) friend, PapaDoc. He said that the best way to do it is to bust up the edge of the existing slab until you get to rebar, then tie in the new slab's rebar to the existing rebar and pour it.

Civil engineers are exceptionally good at over-designing things.

A residential garage slab doesn't need anywhere near that, because it is not subject to lateral loading.

The part he didn't tell you is that if you ARE going to tie into existing rebar, you are going to need to lap the rebar by 2' for a proper rebar lap, AND that the existing exposed bar will need to be re-imbedded with at least 3" of concrete everywhere it is exposed, which means a helluva lot of digging, and effing around for no real purpose, other than to leave a pretty E36 M3ty joint at the juncture.

Plus, the majority of residential slabs have no rebar (fiber concrete only), so it could be an enormous waste of tme and money.

Doweling them together to keep the joint flush is completely sufficient.

slefain wrote:

dyintorace wrote:

Ian F wrote:

dyintorace wrote:

slefain wrote: Since the garage isn't built yet, I highly suggest having a low cinder block wall built first, then place the wood structure on top. My garage sits on a 4-block high wall and it is awesome. Sure you need to have a brick mason lay the block, but after that the framing crew works as normal. The previous owner who had the garage built was a little wacky, but sitting the garage on blocks was brilliant.

Why? I ask because I hope to build a detached 3 car garage in the not too distant future.

For one, it allows for a taller ceiling height while still using common (cheaper) lumber. Second, it keeps the wood and wall covering a nice distance from potential water sources.

Interesting! And good to know!

Bingo! I have zero water damage in the walls, and zero termites. The block walls also give a solid "dumbass proofing" around the entire perimeter. I can roll my engine hoist up against the wall and not worry about damaging anything. Park the lawn mower, who cares if I bump the wall, no damage done. The half height wall also makes is stupid easy to wire since the outlets are all at chest level within the wooden part of the walls. But the main bonus is the height. Without the extra block height I'd have WAY less storage space than I do now. I have a 8x8 foot loft above on car, and still have enough room for a 4-post lift on the other side. Above the rollup door I have a 4' wide loft that spans the entire width of the garage, INSANE amount of storage. Back in the work area I have all kinds of crap hung from the walls that would be banging into my head at normal garage height.

Extra height can easily be accomplished with longer studs. Trees come in big size too (and longer studs are a lot cheaper than studs plus block work)

Block does NOT stop termites. It does, however, give them cavities to crawl up in the wall undetected.

The block stem wall also give an added structural issue hat has to be addressed. Creates a "hinge" effect in the middle of the wall.

Yes, there are lots of good reasons to have a block or concrete stem wall- already listed. But termites and height should not be on that list.

SVreX wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: I discussed extending a slab once with my civil engineer (Ret.) friend, PapaDoc. He said that the best way to do it is to bust up the edge of the existing slab until you get to rebar, then tie in the new slab's rebar to the existing rebar and pour it.

Civil engineers are exceptionally good at over-designing things. A residential garage slab doesn't need anywhere near that, because it is not subject to lateral loading. The part he didn't tell you is that if you ARE going to tie into existing rebar, you are going to need to lap the rebar by 2' for a proper rebar lap, AND that the existing exposed bar will need to be re-imbedded with at least 3" of concrete everywhere it is exposed, which means a helluva lot of digging, and effing around for no real purpose, other than to leave a pretty E36 M3ty joint at the juncture. Plus, the majority of residential slabs have no rebar (fiber concrete only), so it could be an enormous waste of tme and money. Doweling them together to keep the joint flush is completely sufficient.

I agree with all of this up to the point of most residential slabs only using fiber mesh. Up here the only people that use only fiber mesh are the contractors that are basically fly by night.

For connecting the 2 slabs together drilling them and doweling in rebar is just fine

In reply to Antihero:

It varies by region. It's still true though- most new residential work in the US is built with fiber mesh only.

The truth is, it's a cultural thing. The only reason some regions use wire or rebar, is because they always have, and don't understand the materials they are using very well.

The builders you described are PERCEIVED as fly-by-nights. They are still building to code. It is not a substandard technique. In fact, the manner in which many people use steel is MORE likely to fail, particularly in the North.

Residential slabs do not need steel, except (sometimes) in the footings. Tying back to old rebar in a residence when extending a slab compromises more than it accomplishes.

Send me some good vibes folks--just put an offer in on a house that does not need a garage built. Probably going to get rejected, but who knows.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Antihero: It varies by region. It's still true though- most new residential work in the US is built with fiber mesh only. The truth is, it's a cultural thing. The only reason some regions use wire or rebar, is because they always have, and don't understand the materials they are using very well. The builders you described are PERCEIVED as fly-by-nights. They are still building to code. It is not a substandard technique. In fact, the manner in which many people use steel is MORE likely to fail, particularly in the North. Residential slabs do not need steel, except (sometimes) in the footings. Tying back to old rebar in a residence when extending a slab compromises more than it accomplishes.

Maybe it is like that where you are but in the northwest you absolutely need steel by code in footings.

Fiber mesh is awesome For use against small surface cracking, but it's not really a replacement for structural or moment resisting rebar.

I don't just perceive them as fly by night, they really are. Most the time fibermesh is used as a replacement for rebar in an attempt to underbid everyone else. Prep time costs money. Usually I end up coming back and re doing these slabs. Its not all the Fiber mesh fault,usually it's coupled with pouring too wet, a non compacted subbase and weaker cheaper concrete used.

I agree on the not using rebar properly though, rebar is the reinforcement,Not all the strength of a slab. I've seen #5 rebar used on 3 inch slabs before on tiny center's for no apparent reason

mtn wrote: Send me some good vibes folks--just put an offer in on a house that does not need a garage built. Probably going to get rejected, but who knows.

Good vibes sent

mtn wrote:

spin_out wrote: I stopped reading this thread when i saw this brilliance.

bentwrench wrote: No No No. Keep the 2 car garage Build a 3 car shop in the back!

No room. Place in question is apparently under contract now anyways, so moot point. If anyone is wondering, we looked at another place last night that had a garage with room for about 4 miatas (or a TSX, Miata, and maybe a 3 series). Just a little out of our comfort zone with price though, so we're going to pass on it.

Finding a "car guy" oriented house can be a challenge. Something with a big garage and a moderate sized house. Especially in less rural areas. My ex got lucky there (her house is exceptionally rare in the central NJ area), but that was a big reason she bought the house.

Antihero wrote:

SVreX wrote: Plus, the majority of residential slabs have no rebar (fiber concrete only), so it could be an enormous waste of tme and money.

I agree with all of this up to the point of most residential slabs only using fiber mesh. Up here the only people that use only fiber mesh are the contractors that are basically fly by night.

Fibermesh doesn't work everywhere, but it is sure better than haphazardly throwing some welded wire mesh down on the gravel without chairs and pouring concrete over it so the guys walking around leveling the slab stomp it all down to the very bottom, where it does zero good.

mtn wrote: We're already going to be paying PMI. I want that removed before I take on any additional liability (between 1 and 3 years by my current calculations, assuming no job losses).

Ack. Don't do it!

Ian F wrote:

dyintorace wrote:

slefain wrote: Since the garage isn't built yet, I highly suggest having a low cinder block wall built first, then place the wood structure on top. My garage sits on a 4-block high wall and it is awesome. Sure you need to have a brick mason lay the block, but after that the framing crew works as normal. The previous owner who had the garage built was a little wacky, but sitting the garage on blocks was brilliant.

Why? I ask because I hope to build a detached 3 car garage in the not too distant future.

For one, it allows for a taller ceiling height while still using common (cheaper) lumber. Second, it keeps the wood and wall covering a nice distance from potential water sources.

This. My house is built on top of block. There is only one spot around the entire perimeter where something wood reaches ground level. The door jamb of the walk-out door in between my two garage doors. It's rotting.

Keep wood away from the ground if at all possible.

Duke wrote:

Antihero wrote:

SVreX wrote: Plus, the majority of residential slabs have no rebar (fiber concrete only), so it could be an enormous waste of tme and money.

I agree with all of this up to the point of most residential slabs only using fiber mesh. Up here the only people that use only fiber mesh are the contractors that are basically fly by night.

Fibermesh doesn't work everywhere, but it is sure better than haphazardly throwing some welded wire mesh down on the gravel without chairs and pouring concrete over it so the guys walking around leveling the slab stomp it all down to the very bottom, where it does zero good.

Absolutely agree there, reinforcing the gravel doesn't help lol

ProDarwin wrote:

mtn wrote: We're already going to be paying PMI. I want that removed before I take on any additional liability (between 1 and 3 years by my current calculations, assuming no job losses).

Ack. Don't do it!

Trust me. If there was a way to avoid it right now I would, but our options are essentially boiling down to pay nearly as much as the entire payment (pmi, mortgage, taxes, insurance) to live in 1/4 of the space, live with her parents, or buy a house with pmi.

Lot of other details coming into play here that I'm not talking about, such as commutes, chronically/terminally ill parent that we need to be close to, my own stock market/retirement fund analysts, etc. that leave us taking on the pmi.

Pmi is not great but sometimes paying it is the best option. And that's coming from someone almost diagnosably allergic to paying fees or markups on things. Just make absolutely sure that you can eliminate it with a simple process after getting to the target loan to value ratio. Some loans have difficult or time limited processes for pmi removal. You can always refinance without pmi of course but if rates go up you might not want to.

dculberson wrote: Pmi is not great but sometimes paying it is the best option. And that's coming from someone almost diagnosably allergic to paying fees or markups on things. Just make absolutely sure that you can eliminate it with a simple process after getting to the target loan to value ratio. Some loans have difficult or time limited processes for pmi removal. You can always refinance without pmi of course but if rates go up you might not want to.

It is illegal for them to force you to keep it once you're past 20% equity (and we do plan on paying down the principal faster). The processes HAVE to be there, as annoying as they may be. Anything that is too complicated and I'm quick to call in the CFPB.

mtn wrote: Send me some good vibes folks--just put an offer in on a house that does not need a garage built. Probably going to get rejected, but who knows.

Good vibes!!

And.... garage warming party???

Robbie wrote:

mtn wrote: Send me some good vibes folks--just put an offer in on a house that does not need a garage built. Probably going to get rejected, but who knows.

Good vibes!! And.... garage warming party???

Hahhaha--maybe. Don't have much to put in it, and won't have much for a while after either.

At this point though I think negotiations are breaking down. We shot low, they countered, we countered back but I think we're still too far apart. We're just at the top of our price point, regardless of where the house is.

Antihero wrote: Maybe it is like that where you are but in the northwest you absolutely need steel by code in footings.

I think you are overlooking something. If that was correct, your "fly-by-nights" would fail their inspections.

According to the International Building Code (IBC), if a project is a one- or two-family dwelling, three stories or less, with stud-bearing walls, any seismic design category, the requirements of ACI 318 apply, which allow plain concrete footings.

Most residential wood framed garages in the US meet that description.

ACI 318, Chapter 2 defines plain concrete as "Structural concrete with no reinforcement or with less reinforcement than the minimum amount specified for reinforced concrete."

If building to the RBC, the code is slightly different, but allows non reinforced footings, depending on the seismic classification of e project.

Having said that, I agree with you. It's not a good practice, and I have never done it.

Rebar in a 3" slab is not to code (improper imbedment).

In reply to mtn:

Sending good vibes- looking forward to a positive report!!

Potentially positive. Gotta crunch some more numbers tonight, but I think we're getting somewhere. It's more than we wanted to spend (still a lot less than we are approved for--I don't know how these lenders expect people to, you know, eat) but they're offering money back at closing which would put us in a better financial position compared to our original offer for the next 4-7 years depending on how the unknowns play out in that time.

I'd much sooner buy a house that is a little more expensive and already has the stuff I want, than buy a house where things bug the hell out of me and I can fix them because I never have enough time or money in my pocket to build/repair them.

Part of the reason we left the house go that we put in an offer on was because when we looked at things that we wanted versus what the house could offer it fell short, and then it also needed lots of normal stuff like roof, cosmetic work, etc. Our mortgage would have been cheap, but we'd essentially have to be saving an extra $200 a month in order to pay for the improvements necessary.

That extra $200 a month could get us into a much larger, nicer house.

So, go for the one you want, low ball, negotiate, stretch, whatever, or else buy something so cheap you can easily afford to pay for improvements. Splitting the middle in this case doesn't seem advantageous.