I think stairs are supposed to always be the same rise to run ratio and size, otherwise you'd be tripping all over the place. We get used to walking up and down stairs that are basically standard sizes and angles so when they're different you really notice. When you make your own you can fudge a bit by making the landing an inch or two up or down. But the stringers should more or less be the same.
Yup
When I was visiting a friend in UK the townhouse they lived in had a crazy rise over run. The steps were so short that when you put your foot on it, the heel hangs off the back (I don't have THAT big of feet). They took a few days to get used to, and even worse when trying to carry luggage up and down. At least they were narrow stairs that I could plant both palms on the walls (no railings were installed).
I would build my own stringers. It is much cheaper and very easy to do. Once you draw/cut the first once it's just a matter of tracing and cutting. The rise/run ratio does not have to be the exact same as those precut stringers. Just look at the Alberta Building Code for run/rise ratios.
I would always make my rise run standard. When you cheat on the top or bottom step you mess with your brain and cause a trip hazard. Your brain adjusts your step to the rise and when that last one is off it has an effect.
These are the pics I took of the deck. Just need to figure out a better way to do the stairs. I'm thinking of building my own stringers instead of the precut ones as the run is too steep.
Since you are looking for suggestions, I would make the entire side (opposite the house) stairs. Some nice wide and gradual stairs down to the hard. If you can add some LED lights it would be
Stairs along the entire side of the deck as you suggested would definitely look good but keep in mind to keep them within code (depending on how wide those stairs would end up being) it would require a railing in the middle of the stairs as well then. That does not look good. But its something you can skip and just add if selling the house.
I think stairs are supposed to always be the same rise to run ratio and size, otherwise you'd be tripping all over the place. We get used to walking up and down stairs that are basically standard sizes and angles so when they're different you really notice. When you make your own you can fudge a bit by making the landing an inch or two up or down. But the stringers should more or less be the same.
Lol, no. Do you think building floor to floor heights all over the world are being set based on a standard stair rise?
There are code minimums and maximums, but stairs will be anywhere within that range. For residential code is min. 125mm & max. 200mm for rise. Run is min. 210mm & max 355mm.
The restriction yes, is that each step must be the same throughout the whole staircase. Actually there's a small acceptable tolerance.
7" rise / 11" run is generally the most comfortable and preferable but if you have a 23 3/4" deck to grade height, what are you going to do? You're gonna be 3 rise at 7 15/16" or 4 rise at 5 15/16". Change your grade or live with either steep or shallow.
Last edited by topfiverecords; 07-31-2017 at 11:18 AM.
I would always make my rise run standard. When you cheat on the top or bottom step you mess with your brain and cause a trip hazard. Your brain adjusts your step to the rise and when that last one is off it has an effect.
I had one house where the last step going to the basement was just a tiny bit higher than the rest. Like, maybe 5mm. It would mess people up all the time, they'd always grab for the wall after taking that last step.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I had one house where the last step going to the basement was just a tiny bit higher than the rest. Like, maybe 5mm. It would mess people up all the time, they'd always grab for the wall after taking that last step.
Yup, been there. I've also had the last one be shorter and you basically stomp your foot as it expects a bit more travel. lol
50k is probably light. That's a lot of work, which can't be done easily. Obviously, an engineer would be involved. Excavation, disconnecting services, rental of temporary supports, demolition, cribbing, pouring concrete, backfill, reconnecting everything, redoing landscaping/fencing etc.
Many of those tasks would be made more difficult by being cramped for space, and the need to keep the existing house intact.
Many variable factors too that makes any guess not very valuable.
There was a poster asking about thoughts on purchasing a house with a wooden foundation a while back. I didnt know such a thing still existed in Calgary. Did you find that house? I think the consensus was to run away from it as far and as fast as you could.
You have to support the house, that's 5K easy. Remove old foundation, another 5. An easy 30-40 to pour a new foundation.
And that doesn't account for whatever chimneys/vents need to be removed, services altered, plumbing upgrades, etc.
Why would you need to pour a new foundation? There may be other options if you are dealing with cracks or shifting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
50k is probably light. That's a lot of work, which can't be done easily. Obviously, an engineer would be involved. Excavation, disconnecting services, rental of temporary supports, demolition, cribbing, pouring concrete, backfill, reconnecting everything, redoing landscaping/fencing etc.
Many of those tasks would be made more difficult by being cramped for space, and the need to keep the existing house intact.
Many variable factors too that makes any guess not very valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Just curious, what's wrong with the foundation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by puffnstuff
There was a poster asking about thoughts on purchasing a house with a wooden foundation a while back. I didnt know such a thing still existed in Calgary. Did you find that house? I think the consensus was to run away from it as far and as fast as you could.
Puffnstuff is correct. It is a wood foundation house and I was just throwing around the idea the possibility of replacing it with a concrete foundation down the round. I have no problem living in the house while the foundation is wood, in fact the basement seems warmer and drier than concrete foundation basements I've been in. But I know down the road when the home is sold it will be an issue for resale.
I was wondering if you could get the house for $75K under market value, if you could price in the cost to pour a whole new foundation. I'm guessing the basement would need to be torn up? It's a recently finished basement so that would be a shame and big additional cost.
Did you buy it, or are just considering buying it? How old is the house?
Haven't bought it. General consensus seems to be that anyone who has built or lived in a wood foundation house says its fine, everybody else says stay away. That's why I'm afraid at resale you lose out on a huge fraction of potential buyers who just aren't familiar with it. It's a late 80's construction.
There is nothing wrong with a properly constructed wood foundation. Built right and backfilled properly, with correct drainage and there is no reason to worry, but that is the same as any foundation.
Bad education and assumptions are the only real issues with wood foundations.
Unless there is something really special about the house, I wouldn't consider it. It may be fine, but like you say, resale. I'm not sure what insurance thinks about it either. Late 80's at least gives it decent life left. The one I looked at was '70s and the basement walls had a bit of a bow to them. It felt warmer, but it also had more of a damp feeling.
My old neighbour in Canmore had one and when they replaced it they jacked up the house. Unfortunately it all got really expensive becuase as they got into it, they start realizing things weren't going to be up to new code and had to bring those up as they went. Would have been cheaper in the end to knock the house down and start over. They did do lots of upgrades, but still.