Renovating 1900 house. What keeps up this landing?

[Gina_Violet]

Apologies if this is a really obvious question but we have a 1900's house which was two flats and we are turning it back into one. The upstairs was one flat and down the other.

 

We have removed the hallway stud wall but originally you would also see the stair rails going up the turn. In the pic you can see the wooden frame from the studd wall, they also extended the sloped ceiling part under the stairs, that should be further back.

 

The wooden post making up the frame of the stud wall obviously wasn't there originally, so what holds up the small landing jutting out on the turn on the left of the stair rail?  

 

I hope that makes sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

[joe90]

Ooh I love that floor!!! The landing is self supporting and does not need the stud wall timbers.

[FuerteStu]

I spotted that hallway floor too! Beautiful. 

 

I'm not a SE but I'm guessing that triangle fill is not structural either and could be removed. 

That would let even more natural light through. 

 

Have you seen any of the neighbours layouts? That would give you a guide to how it was originally. 

 

 

[Gina_Violet]

50 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Ooh I love that floor!!! The landing is self supporting and does not need the stud wall timbers.

 

37 minutes ago, FuerteStu said:

I spotted that hallway floor too! Beautiful. 

 

I'm not a SE but I'm guessing that triangle fill is not structural either and could be removed. 

That would let even more natural light through. 

 

Have you seen any of the neighbours layouts? That would give you a guide to how it was originally. 

 

 

 

Thank you.  Yes we are lucky the original floor is still there, we were fortunate that despite turning it into flats they left most of the original features.

 

Yes the triangle fill is not original, part might be, but they brought it forward to align with the stud wall.

 

I was worried about that landing so great to know it's self supporting, which I thought it must be.

 

I have seen one neighbours house and originally it looked like ours where you can see all the spindles. 

 

I think my builder is being careful. 

 

[ProDave]

A friend of mine bought a house like that.  He had a survey during the buying process and the surveyor warned the corner of the landing like that was cantilevered from the rest of the building and was a structural defect.  My friend of course answered, well it has not fallen down or even moved in the last 60 years so I think it is okay. 

[Gina_Violet]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

A friend of mine bought a house like that.  He had a survey during the buying process and the surveyor warned the corner of the landing like that was cantilevered from the rest of the building and was a structural defect.  My friend of course answered, well it has not fallen down or even moved in the last 60 years so I think it is okay. 

 

Yes, thats how I look at it. The problem I think we have is working out what was changed and was original. So it's a bit of a puzzle at times. I go by original architrave and cornice for the most part.  They did a  good with changing it into flats that sometimes it hard to see what was added, but also exciting.   It's rather genius how that 'floats' there without anything under it.  Hopefully we are not the first people in 120 years to fall through it. 

 

 

[joe90]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

the landing like that was cantilevered from the rest of the building and was a structural defect. 

Surveyors eh, I have had a few run ins with them giving crap advise.

[saveasteading]

4 hours ago, Gina_Violet said:

Hopefully we are not the first people in 120 years to fall through it. 

Yes I sometimes say something similar, but it isn't always that simple.

There are factors of safety in buildings (by calculation or practice), and these can combine to do those magic tricks. 

But on a particular day (one day in 50 years) it might snow and blow and 6 people jump on the same spot, or someone moves  a grand piano there.

 

Thus we can make these decisions privately, but a professional  doesn't know the building intimately, or want to be sued for any issue.

[Gina_Violet]

On 16/09/2024 at 18:34, ProDave said:

A friend of mine bought a house like that.  He had a survey during the buying process and the surveyor warned the corner of the landing like that was cantilevered from the rest of the building and was a structural defect.  My friend of course answered, well it has not fallen down or even moved in the last 60 years so I think it is okay. 

 

My partner pulled up the carpet and ply and discovered it appears to have been added later, so held up by the post in the stud wall that was removed.

 

It seems it was added to accommodate a radiator.

 

Wouldn't a builder usually check all this before removing walls and posts?

 

You can see in the pic the old boards, which matches the original ceiling under it.

 

[Mr Punter]

You can't always tell how something is supported until you dismantle.  The spindles at the end are different, suggesting the return balustrade is not original.  Nothing insurmountable here.  Is the end corner of the landing wobbly?

[joe90]

Very interesting, yes the end spindles are newer and two new ones among what appear to be original ones. I wonder if the original landing was at 45’ like the floor would suggest. You mentioned neighbours houses, can you ask to compare what they have?