Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

No_Difference_1962 t1_jaalpp1 wrote

They do that on purpose. If you leave one wall standing then it’s not considered a “new build” but rather a renovation. I believe it’s done as there are are different rules/regulations based on new build vs renovation.

60

speckyradge t1_jaan0i1 wrote

Yup. Likely avoids a bunch of troublesome code requirements. I used to see this in Chicago (where it has to be two walls) so that the new build didn't need to conform to either the setbacks for fire code, meaning the new house could be much closer to its neighbors than would otherwise be allowed.

8

CrispiestCrispyCrisp t1_jaan5cw wrote

I’d have kept a side wall rather than the front. It reminds me a little of the Truman show looking at it 😂

1

No_Difference_1962 t1_jaasubt wrote

Once they have other walls built, they will knock down the one original wall.

7

CrispiestCrispyCrisp t1_jaatqty wrote

TIL. I made an assumption that you had to keep the original wall. Interesting.

3

JKSHulenburg t1_jabbhe2 wrote

My dad had to do this for his garage. If he tore it down to foundations, he'd have to move it 30 feet from the house per code. By leaving 2 walls up at a time, it was a "repair" and it could stay in place.

If I remember correctly, the garage predated the house by 20 years and was built during the depression out of scrap wood. As such, it was falling over. It violated modern codes because it was just 4 feet from the house meaning any fire in the garage could easily jump to the house.

3

BLDLED t1_jaayi3f wrote

Our last house was a 1913… remodeled like this in 2006, including adding a 2nd story.

1

tatpig t1_jac2wnb wrote

the couple who bought my childhood home did the same.left the brick foyer to qualify for a reno permit, but built an ugly Mcmansion around it.

1