If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by tbasc@bellsouth.net on September 13, 2008, 11:24 pm
> I know every place and situation is different, just trying to figure if
> this is reasonable. (And someone's not pulling something over on a naive
> home owner).
> New to me house has a "sun room" built across the back of the house.
> There are two separate sets of cement steps from the house to the room.
> The steps are very awkward for me. I'm 5' tall, and the distance from
> the door to the first step is like 9-1/2", and different on the other.
> And since I have to step over a threshold just inside the door, it makes
> the first step *really* big for me. I'm interested in having new "user
> friendly" steps put in over the existing ones.
> I had a contractor that I've used before look at them, just to build
> plain wood steps over the existing steps, using Trex. He originally
> quoted me $450 for the two, or $420 if I did it with plain wood. Then
> the other day he came by and looked at them again and sent me an email
> that he'd realized he couldn't do them as he'd originally planned with
> stringers and needed to use a "box method" and that "there is more
> material required with this method so the new price would be $750.00."
> So questions - shouldn't he have realized what type of design he'd need
> when he first measured the steps and quoted on it? And should the
> difference really be $300 for additional material? And most importantly,
> what would a reasonable price (range) be for two sets of steps (3 steps
> each) in the Baltimore area? I was happy with the $450 although a male
> relative told me he thought it was too much since it would "only need
> $50 worth of material". I wouldn't be asking here about the original
> price, but I'm confused by the $300 increase. (It's not the cost of
> Trex, because the orig price specified a $30 reduction if he used
> unfinished lumber).
> Current steps -http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v704/lurkerlee/problem%2=
0areas/?act...
As has been said, the present steps are a code violation and as you
have said, not comfortable or safe.
Is there a drawing or written description of what the contractor is to
build?
As I see it,the contractor wants to build a code compliant landing at
the door, then the steps.
He originally had in mind a set of steps without landing.
T
|
|
Posted by cshenk on September 14, 2008, 12:42 pm
>> Current
>> steps
-http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v704/lurkerlee/problem%20areas/?act...
>As has been said, the present steps are a code violation and as you
>have said, not comfortable or safe.
Yes. Looks like original outdoor ones. Would not be code compliant now for
exterior either but would have been grandfathered. Once the room was built
around them, then local code compliancy comes to question. They may no
longer be grandfathered? Area dependant.
Example, when I had my sunroom redone, we were required to upgrade a door
lintel and electrical to current standards. Both were grandfathered before
but not on a rebuilt room.
>Is there a drawing or written description of what the contractor is to
>build?
>As I see it,the contractor wants to build a code compliant landing at
>the door, then the steps.
>He originally had in mind a set of steps without landing.
I'd add to make sure the fellow knows his codes. This can be a costly
mistake if it has to be redone.
I agree with Alta47 as well, unless the existing steps are so covered you
cant tell thery are there, it's gonna look tacky. Encasing with brickwork
over them (leading to 2 taller steps) is the only untacky way besides
encasing completely in wood, that I can think of. All other methods I can
think of involve removal of the cement steps.
|
|
Posted by Lee on September 14, 2008, 4:08 pm
cshenk wrote:
>
>>> Current
>>> steps
-http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v704/lurkerlee/problem%20areas/?act...
>
>> As has been said, the present steps are a code violation and as you
>> have said, not comfortable or safe.
>
> Yes. Looks like original outdoor ones. Would not be code compliant now for
> exterior either but would have been grandfathered. Once the room was built
> around them, then local code compliancy comes to question. They may no
> longer be grandfathered? Area dependant.
>
> Example, when I had my sunroom redone, we were required to upgrade a door
> lintel and electrical to current standards. Both were grandfathered before
> but not on a rebuilt room.
>
>> Is there a drawing or written description of what the contractor is to
>> build?
>
>> As I see it,the contractor wants to build a code compliant landing at
>> the door, then the steps.
>> He originally had in mind a set of steps without landing.
>
> I'd add to make sure the fellow knows his codes. This can be a costly
> mistake if it has to be redone.
>
> I agree with Alta47 as well, unless the existing steps are so covered you
> cant tell thery are there, it's gonna look tacky. Encasing with brickwork
> over them (leading to 2 taller steps) is the only untacky way besides
> encasing completely in wood, that I can think of. All other methods I can
> think of involve removal of the cement steps.
>
>
Thank you all for the comments. Yes, I'm pretty sure these were the
original cement steps to the outside, and at some point, someone added
on the sunroom with the cement floor (which I assume is why the last
step is so shallow). All of the houses in this neighborhood seem to have
two sets of back steps.
What I'm envisioning, although now that you mention it, I need to be
sure that's explicit, is that the cement steps would be completely
covered by the wooden ones.
Interestingly, I actually did have a mason cover the front steps in
brick (same problem). He added a "landing" or at least a very small drop
to the top step. He did a beautiful job, but to me, brick steps are sort
of "outdoorsy", and thought wood would make it more of a room...but heck
they would be nicer than cement! He did give me a quote on doing both
sets of steps in the sunroom, but that was 2400! I'm not sure the steps
are quite that annoying yet. (I'm still trying to sell my old house, so
every dollar counts right now).
I'm assuming that having the current cement steps removed would be a big
deal? I may have to rethink the brick approach.
(Oh, and BTW, the male relative is my younger brother. I'm not asking
him to do the steps because he never finished projects he started in my
old house 20 years ago, LOL).
|
|
Posted by cshenk on September 14, 2008, 4:35 pm
"Lee" wrote
> cshenk wrote:
>> Yes. Looks like original outdoor ones. Would not be code compliant now
>> for exterior either but would have been grandfathered. Once the room was
>> built around them, then local code compliancy comes to question. They
>> may no longer be grandfathered? Area dependant.
Did your inspection when you got the house mention these? I gather the
sunroom was there then. If added sunroom afterwards, you have no
grandfather for the steps when you sell this house.
>> I'd add to make sure the fellow knows his codes. This can be a costly
>> mistake if it has to be redone.
>> I agree with Alta47 as well, unless the existing steps are so covered you
>> cant tell thery are there, it's gonna look tacky. Encasing with
>> brickwork over them (leading to 2 taller steps) is the only untacky way
>> besides encasing completely in wood, that I can think of. All other
>> methods I can think of involve removal of the cement steps.
> Thank you all for the comments. Yes, I'm pretty sure these were the
> original cement steps to the outside, and at some point, someone added on
> the sunroom with the cement floor (which I assume is why the last step is
> so shallow). All of the houses in this neighborhood seem to have two sets
> of back steps.
Yes, would have been construction of the times and grandfathered code.
Quite a bit of my house has that still so we are familiar with it. If I
renovate my bathrooms for example, I am reqiuired to add electrical outlets
(there are none there now).
> What I'm envisioning, although now that you mention it, I need to be sure
> that's explicit, is that the cement steps would be completely covered by
> the wooden ones.
That was my first assumption.
> Interestingly, I actually did have a mason cover the front steps in brick
> (same problem). He added a "landing" or at least a very small drop to the
> top step. He did a beautiful job, but to me, brick steps are sort of
> "outdoorsy", and thought wood would make it more of a room...but heck they
> would be nicer than cement! He did give me a quote on doing both sets of
> steps in the sunroom, but that was 2400! I'm not sure the steps are quite
> that annoying yet. (I'm still trying to sell my old house, so every dollar
> counts right now).
From the apparent dimensions, it looked do-able for me in brick.
I've never had one house on sale same time as living in a new one but I can
understand that.
> I'm assuming that having the current cement steps removed would be a big
> deal? I may have to rethink the brick approach.
No, not really. They should have been chopped out before the new slab was
laid that low but it's much less expensive to remove them now than to reslab
the rest higher especially if it will make the ceiling too low.
> (Oh, and BTW, the male relative is my younger brother. I'm not asking him
> to do the steps because he never finished projects he started in my old
> house 20 years ago, LOL).
LOL! Gotcha! Yeah, not a best pick there!
|
|
Posted by SteveB on September 14, 2008, 12:15 am
> I know every place and situation is different, just trying to figure if
> this is reasonable. (And someone's not pulling something over on a naive
> home owner).
> New to me house has a "sun room" built across the back of the house. There
> are two separate sets of cement steps from the house to the room. The
> steps are very awkward for me. I'm 5' tall, and the distance from the door
> to the first step is like 9-1/2", and different on the other. And since I
> have to step over a threshold just inside the door, it makes the first
> step *really* big for me. I'm interested in having new "user friendly"
> steps put in over the existing ones.
> I had a contractor that I've used before look at them, just to build plain
> wood steps over the existing steps, using Trex. He originally quoted me
> $450 for the two, or $420 if I did it with plain wood. Then the other day
> he came by and looked at them again and sent me an email that he'd
> realized he couldn't do them as he'd originally planned with stringers and
> needed to use a "box method" and that "there is more material required
> with this method so the new price would be $750.00."
> So questions - shouldn't he have realized what type of design he'd need
> when he first measured the steps and quoted on it? And should the
> difference really be $300 for additional material? And most importantly,
> what would a reasonable price (range) be for two sets of steps (3 steps
> each) in the Baltimore area? I was happy with the $450 although a male
> relative told me he thought it was too much since it would "only need $50
> worth of material". I wouldn't be asking here about the original price,
> but I'm confused by the $300 increase. (It's not the cost of Trex, because
> the orig price specified a $30 reduction if he used unfinished lumber).
> Current steps -
>
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v704/lurkerlee/problem%20areas/?action=view¤t=Sunroom-awkwardsteps.jpg
Crap, man. Where are you? I'd be happy to do it for $700.
Steve
|
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Reasonable Price for set of 3 steps, was : Replace Dangerous Side Steps. | March 27, 2007, 11:57 am |
| Furnace Installation....Reasonable price??? | December 16, 2005, 5:39 am |
| Furnace and Air Conditioner Installation -- Reasonable Price | December 21, 2005, 4:05 am |
| Building steps | May 17, 2009, 6:53 pm |
| Re: Building steps | May 18, 2009, 10:52 am |
| Building steps with stone ?? | February 27, 2007, 6:26 pm |
| Building steps for an attached deck | August 5, 2005, 3:34 am |
| Building Shower Pans - 7 Steps! | October 3, 2007, 8:38 am |
| Building new steps with bricks.. a nuff nuff question or few .. | August 7, 2006, 8:44 pm |
| office building bathroom tile building code | October 18, 2005, 1:56 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> this is reasonable. (And someone's not pulling something over on a naive
> home owner).
> New to me house has a "sun room" built across the back of the house.
> There are two separate sets of cement steps from the house to the room.
> The steps are very awkward for me. I'm 5' tall, and the distance from
> the door to the first step is like 9-1/2", and different on the other.
> And since I have to step over a threshold just inside the door, it makes
> the first step *really* big for me. I'm interested in having new "user
> friendly" steps put in over the existing ones.
> I had a contractor that I've used before look at them, just to build
> plain wood steps over the existing steps, using Trex. He originally
> quoted me $450 for the two, or $420 if I did it with plain wood. Then
> the other day he came by and looked at them again and sent me an email
> that he'd realized he couldn't do them as he'd originally planned with
> stringers and needed to use a "box method" and that "there is more
> material required with this method so the new price would be $750.00."
> So questions - shouldn't he have realized what type of design he'd need
> when he first measured the steps and quoted on it? And should the
> difference really be $300 for additional material? And most importantly,
> what would a reasonable price (range) be for two sets of steps (3 steps
> each) in the Baltimore area? I was happy with the $450 although a male
> relative told me he thought it was too much since it would "only need
> $50 worth of material". I wouldn't be asking here about the original
> price, but I'm confused by the $300 increase. (It's not the cost of
> Trex, because the orig price specified a $30 reduction if he used
> unfinished lumber).
> Current steps -http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v704/lurkerlee/problem%2=