Unlicensed architect, DuPage County Illinois

[djswan]

Hmmmm this could get deeper, another theory...the carpenters knew the homeowners were moronic jerks and with malicious intent did a crappy job for them. I've seen it before...and anyone who knows construction has seen it too.

[Mark Mc]

And this is what we where talking about right? (getting the most qualified people on the job)

No that is not what this thread is about at all. It's about a few bad apples screwing over a lot of homeowners, shoddy construction and an unlicensed person impersonating an architect.

Now if you want to sing the praises of engineers, I'll back you up on that one, but not to the detriment of architects, I suspect you have no idea the amount of training they receive.

Another thing worth mentioning is that in the states I'm familiar with (I suspect it's the same across the country) architects and engineers are prohibited from taking on projects that are beyond their scope of knowledge and can be disciplined if they do. They have a license that provides their livelihood that could be in jeopardy to keep them in check. I know of no such provision for home designers.

[csintexas]

Mark:

I also stated that the unlicensed "designer" personally told me and other homeowners he was an architect, that is a fact

This is what you said, where is the proof?

You keep saying he is not qualified to be designing but he is. So who is right you, who by your own admission don't know, or all the officials that keep excepting his work?

Why not, great opportunity to tale a shot at architects again.

You're the one that accused them, not me.

Why didn't you post about the 13 that died on the porch in Chicago designed by a "designer"...

In fact I did post about that.

...or the many people that get hurt every year on structures designed by "designers". Did you know that structures designed by "designers", not licensed architects or engineers, are responsible for the most injuries?

Oh OK more of your accusations -where is the proof for this? Is this per capita or in total?

This is what phansford said:

If I were doing a report on this house - these are exactly the types of drawings and photographs I would provide. (Which BTW - I have done for homeowners) And is just the type of photos and drawings used by attorneys to bring legal action.

This is what I said in response:

Honestly phansford if this is the sort of thing you would provide as evidence you need to get out of the business

Certainly could have been clearer but think it was close enough.

Again: I called your drawing stupid because it is a stupid drawing. You could have drawn a house sitting on a cloud for all I care, it won't prove that a house can actually be built on a cloud.

Yes, most of the architects online are morons Rolling Eyes, again we're learning more about you.

I just thought you might enjoy that since you seem to be particularly fond of architects.

By your logic then the catwalk drawings submitted must have been sufficient as well, the problem is, they weren't.

Yes they where clearly sufficient to be accepted and approved for building. That doesn't mean that they don't contain errors -those are two different things. I have never seen a requirement that a plan has to be perfect in order to be approved.

That is unless you think it's okay to support a porch from OSB and a post directly on dirt, that it's okay to have railings that are not the proper height, that common steel nails are fine with treated lumber, that tapcons are fine on joist hangers, that nails sticking out are fine or that stair risers can vary considerably more than 3/8 of an inch.

We have been over this. What I have said all along is that this shows incompetence on the builders part. Is the builder, the designer and the person directly responsible for supervising this the same person?

Your facts change so much it is hard to keep them straight. Sometimes the ledger board is support by nothing now by OSB. But since the fact that these porches where improperly built was unanimously agreed upon by everyone who has participated I don't see what the point is. For all I know the homeowner did the deck construction themselves. All I have is your word and I think you are a idiot.

(but apparently your English is not so bad so if you want to regularly provide spell checking services go for it)

[djswan]

Why the website? I keep asking myself. Why O' why the website?

That website looks like a bunch of time and energy, lawyers are expensive too. Isn't the Simpsons a trademark? To rally the Lombardians! to action!

Why is the guy holding the cheap level with the rubber band, holding a cheap level with a rubberband and taking pictures, when his spam could be fixing that porch and not bitching about it? Where is the success story here? a happy lawsuit?

I don't see a Village of McMansions getting much sympothy.

[csintexas]

They have a license that provides their livelihood that could be in jeopardy to keep them in check. I know of no such provision for home designers.

This country has basic laws which prohibit people from harming others through either negligence or bad intent. I think we could certainly find examples of doctors who lost their license and then simply moved to another state.

The architects on the catwalk job had a license and that didn't seem to prohibit them from designing an overly complicated suspended bridge. A more prudent designer might have designed a safer easier to build structure with normal over engineered supports.

[Mark Mc]

Mark:

I also stated that the unlicensed "designer" personally told me and other homeowners he was an architect, that is a fact

This is what you said, where is the proof?

You keep saying he is not qualified to be designing but he is. So who is right you, who by your own admission don't know, or all the officials that keep excepting his work?

Why not, great opportunity to tale a shot at architects again.

You're the one that accused them, not me.

Why didn't you post about the 13 that died on the porch in Chicago designed by a "designer"...

In fact I did post about that.

...or the many people that get hurt every year on structures designed by "designers". Did you know that structures designed by "designers", not licensed architects or engineers, are responsible for the most injuries?

Oh OK more of your accusations -where is the proof for this? Is this per capita or in total?

This is what phansford said:

If I were doing a report on this house - these are exactly the types of drawings and photographs I would provide. (Which BTW - I have done for homeowners) And is just the type of photos and drawings used by attorneys to bring legal action.

This is what I said in response:

Honestly phansford if this is the sort of thing you would provide as evidence you need to get out of the business

Certainly could have been clearer but think it was close enough.

Again: I called your drawing stupid because it is a stupid drawing. You could have drawn a house sitting on a cloud for all I care, it won't prove that a house can actually be built on a cloud.

Yes, most of the architects online are morons Rolling Eyes, again we're learning more about you.

I just thought you might enjoy that since you seem to be particularly fond of architects.

By your logic then the catwalk drawings submitted must have been sufficient as well, the problem is, they weren't.

Yes they where clearly sufficient to be accepted and approved for building. That doesn't mean that they don't contain errors -those are two different things. I have never seen a requirement that a plan has to be perfect in order to be approved.

That is unless you think it's okay to support a porch from OSB and a post directly on dirt, that it's okay to have railings that are not the proper height, that common steel nails are fine with treated lumber, that tapcons are fine on joist hangers, that nails sticking out are fine or that stair risers can vary considerably more than 3/8 of an inch.

We have been over this. What I have said all along is that this shows incompetence on the builders part. Is the builder, the designer and the person directly responsible for supervising this the same person?

Your facts change so much it is hard to keep them straight. Sometimes the ledger board is support by nothing now by OSB. But since the fact that these porches where improperly built was unanimously agreed upon by everyone who has participated I don't see what the point is. For all I know the homeowner did the deck construction themselves. All I have is your word and I think you are a idiot.

(but apparently you English is not so bad so if you want to regularly provide spell checking services go for it)

Yes, calling me an idiot really gets your point across. Look, you're all over the place, I think it's clear you have some problem with architects. Were you not accepted to an architectural school? Did an architect give you a dirty look? What was it? They're all just morons except for a few? You think for some reason that any person that calls himself a designer or you call a designer is more qualified. You're the one calling this guy a designer, I'm calling him an unlicensed person impersonating an architect and I have more than proved it.

You keep asking for proof that he isn't qualified and that it's only my word. I have provided the proof, get over your insecurities and open your eyes. The law here requires the use of an Illinois licensed architect or structural engineer on houses in that particular town, he does not have that license, therefore he is not qualified, period. Qualified has nothing to do with ability. Do you not get it? Lets try this, there is a swimming contest for people between the ages of 20 and 30, lets say you are in your forties, you can swim, maybe beat all the younger folks, but you are not qualified, you are not between the ages of 20 and 30, therefore you are ineligible to compete in the contest.

Now lets get to that illustration that is so offensive to you, what exactly is wrong with it? Did it not illustrate the point I was trying to get across? Was it not pretty enough for you? You can do so much better that my illustration just has to be stupid? Just saying it's stupid doesn't make it so. You sound like a second grader, maybe you want to make fun of my kickball abilities or something.

In order for the plans to have been sufficient they would have had to been drawn by an Illinois licensed architect or structural engineer or by someone in their direct control and then sealed by an Illinois licensed architect or structural engineer, they were not, they are not sufficient. The fact that the building department accepted insufficient plans doesn't make them sufficient, just as them passing inspection on those non-compliant porches doesn't make them compliant.



.

[Mark Mc]

They have a license that provides their livelihood that could be in jeopardy to keep them in check. I know of no such provision for home designers.

This country has basic laws which prohibit people from harming others through either negligence or bad intent. I think we could certainly find examples of doctors who lost their license and then simply moved to another state.

The architects on the catwalk job had a license and that didn't seem to prohibit them from designing an overly complicated suspended bridge. A more prudent designer might have designed a safer easier to build structure with normal over engineered supports.

From the sounds of things you don't know what happened with the "catwalk", I do. It had nothing to do with it being an "overly complicated suspended bridge". It was an error, the manufacturer of the hardware changed things increasing the loads and the engineers didn't catch it or correct it. It's a bit more than that but I suggest you learn about what really happened before commenting on it.

[djswan]

usarender?

[Mark Mc]

csintexas

Lets say you're using a 5/8" lag screw in the side grain of a 2x4 (hem-fir) what is the reduction, if there is one, in shear in the side grain?

[djswan]

csintexas

Lets say you're using a 5/8" lag screw in the side grain of a 2x4 (hem-fir) what is the reduction, if there is one, in shear in the side grain?

Talking about wood, now you're in my realm. The is no such thing as side grain.

[csintexas]

You keep asking for proof that he isn't qualified and that it's only my word. I have provided the proof, get over your insecurities and open your eyes

Yes, I keep asking for proof several times just in my last post and you keep ignoring those requests.

Your drawing is stupid because a drawing does not constitute proof. As I said if I draw a house on a cloud that does not prove that a house can be built on a cloud it is just a drawing. You also failed to take adequate pictures to prove anything, all they are are a few miscellaneous pictures showing a deck and a sheetrock wall with a hole in it. You have not provided a reasonable explanation of how Grimmes and Assoc. has been allowed to be the registered architect on several jobs. You have not explained how the appraisals where falsified. You would be an extremely lousy lawyer.

The catwalk fell. I am 100% certain that I can design one that won't fall. What else do I need to know?

[csintexas]

Lets say you're using a 5/8" lag screw in the side grain of a 2x4 (hem-fir) what is the reduction, if there is one, in shear in the side grain?

This is a stupid question. Where is the hole located? What loads are being applied? Side grain? -what kind of stupid terminology is that?

You must have just purchased a copy of structural engineering for dummies.

[djswan]

Do we have ourselves an ambulance chaser here? The clues are adding up. I didn't think McMansion owners still have money to afford one, when they should be spending time fixing the crap.

[Mark Mc]

Lets say you're using a 5/8" lag screw in the side grain of a 2x4 (hem-fir) what is the reduction, if there is one, in shear in the side grain?

This is a stupid question. Where is the hole located? What loads are being applied? Side grain? -what kind of stupid terminology is that?

You must have just purchased a copy of structural engineering for dummies.

Just as I thought, you really shouldn't be building houses. The question is directly related to the porch collapse.

[Mark Mc]

Talking about wood, now you're in my realm. The is no such thing as side grain.

Apparently you don't know as much about wood as you think you do.