Other than the fact it may not even pass code it looks like a**.

Thankfully I am not the only one to see this.. BUT.. The even bigger problem???? If and when I approach them about moving the railing, what happens to the steps that they have now drilled into to mount the railing?? I would assume that the steps should be replaced as well, shouldn't they? I doubt they are going to want to do this.. They will probably want to just fill them in somehow..

Millworkman - I am also questioning if this will pass code.. I know code specifies the railing as a barrier due to the height.. But as far as the railing being of "assistance" it is useless.. You can't get to it when going down the stairs unless you step down first.. And when going up you have to let go and step up to the top step unassisted..

Do it like the architect drew it!

No! Don't accept this.

What material are the stair treads?

JN3344 - Yes.. That is what we thought they were doing.. We had no reason to think they would do it any other way.. They never even asked us about it.. They just did it like this....

Chisue - The stair treads are limestone treads..

I don't think the ironwork will look or function much better if you cut it up and moved it over.

If the height of the landing above the final grade (I assume the grade will be raised) is not 30" or greater, a guard rail and balusters are not required at the landing or at the stairs by the building code .

I would remove the ornamental ironwork and install a simple powder coated bent tube from the column to the walkway and fill the holes in the stone treads or replace them. Alternatively, a single tube handrail could be mounted on the wall with returns top and bottom. I used a brass one at the back steps of my house.

The way this is usually avoided is by requiring the architect or owner to approve any metalwork shop drawings before fabrication. Was there a side elevation on the drawings?

JDS - In the end it shouldn't matter if it is or is not required.. The point is still made that they deviated from the plan and basically just did whatever they wanted.. And to top if off they didn't notify me of any changes or request permission for the change.. If the installer had an issue installing as per plan or was unsure a simple phone call would have resolved this.. But as it seems it is a going trend wiht my builder to just do the work and HOPE that it is right and when its not then they just rip it out and do a "repair".. Everything seems to be "repair" jobs.. Lights need to be moved so they wait until sheetrock is installed and painted before cracking the ceiling open.. It is just annoying..

Here is a picture of the side elevation as per the architect..

As installed side elevation:

Yeah, see? Totally not acceptable.

I have no interest in the contract issues; I'm just responding to the design issues as I see them.

Some things you let go. Like, for me, I like your wood floors..and what a mess it would be to redo them. But this just looks cheap.

JN3344 - We are probably going to stick with the floors.. We are just waiting for the all clear to actually go inside the house.. Right now we are barred to the entry way until the poly is dry and we can walk on it.. Once we get inside to get a true feel for it we will make our final decision...

JDS - I appreciate your input on the design.. I was just reiterating that no matter is "needed" or not, this is unacceptable..

We are just trying to figure out what is going to be the best course of action.. We are thinking of just having them move it to match the architects drawings and have it come out in line with the column.. And while doing so they can remove and reinstall brand new limestone treads and "hopefully" not damage the concrete landing.. We are just trying to decide if there is anything that will "work" better while it is removed.. We definitely want a full railing and baluster setup..

Whether or not it is acceptable is really not relevant. You posted about the way it looks, and you are right, it looks bad. You have a very beefy post that is different from the one drawn, a very dainty railing with a porch that is larger than drawn. It isn't going to look good inside the post, outside the post, or at the post. Put this one on your neighbor's house, then do what JDS suggested, and then call the whole thing a victory.

If you want a full railing and baluster then fix the post and the porch. Other than that throw this railing away and try something a little beefier.

It looks bad AND it's not what the plan called for. I don't see that they have a leg to stand on. However, it can't just be moved because whoever had this fabricated (if in fact it was a custom fabrication and not something off the shelf which would actually explain why they did what they did) had it made in one piece instead of 2 as per plan. But bry911 is right - it's the wrong material and mass for the post. And yes, I'd want the stone replaced, not filled. You may have some ammunition there if in fact you decide to keep the floors.

Have to agree with JDS and bry.

Glad I'm not the builder!

No, it doesn't match the drawings. But not only does the OP want new step(s) but probably a new concrete porch as well, as new posts will require new holes. BTW, if that's a hollow post, it will not provide the greatest support for the railings. As it is, I can't imagine anyone thinking, "Oh how bad this railing looks!" without prompting.

Appreciate all the input.. WORTHY.. I would definitely want new steps.. Why should I have visible patch work on my brand new house? That would be like buying a brand new car and having a fender that is a different color.. If you are spending money on building a brand new house then you expect a certain level of appearance.. The holes that were drilled into the actual porch beneath the tread are not visible and can be patched.. As long as it remains structurally sound it doesn't matter.. But I wold definitely expect new treads..

Just as a little update.. I contacted my builder.. Apparently he is saying that he sent his railing contractor over to the house to measure and install but NEVER told him what to do.. Simply told him the material, color and that he was to do the front and side porch.. So it is still a question as to who takes responsibility.. I assume it will fall on the builder since he never told the guy how to mount the railing.. Although the post was installed when the railing guy came to measure, and I can't see a guy that does this for a living not question how the owner wants it placed with a column that is in this location.. But as I said before.. My builder seems to like doing the work and then having to rip it out and do it over.. Have a meeting on Monday at the site to go over everything..

Your contract is with the GC so responsibility stops there. Don't let your GC use irrelevant stories about the installer distract you from solving the problem.

What has the GC suggest as a solution? What has your architect suggested as a solution?

"The actual build came out slightly different (even though I brought it to the builders attention at the time but was told I was wrong) where our porch stuck out slightly more then the second floor..."

It looks like the builder is hand waving and blowing smoke, hoping you will cave and he can hurry on to the next job. He screwed up, plain as day. If it were my house, I'd demand a big credit at closing, call it good, and get this guy out of my face-- on the theory that he's more trouble than he's worth.

I'm guessing he's almost ready to bolt anyway, as he has reached the "I'm not making any money on this job" stage. He likely justifies this attitude to himself with, "I have to feed my kids, and this client is an unreasonable meanie," or "it would be good enough for me, why isn't it good enough for you, Mr. Special Snowflake?" or some such thing. :)

Sometimes you win battles with direct assaults and total war. Sometimes, it's best to cut your losses and live to fight another day. That's not the standard GWebber advice, but the people who post here are not spending your time or your money. You are not obliged to right all the wrongs of the construction universe here-- that can't be done anyway.

I'd say, look for the most efficient solution, the one that best preserves your time, money, and sanity. Then resolve the situation to some level of (imperfect) satisfaction, and get on with your life. Talk it over with your architect, who should have dealt with stuff like this before, and should have some good ideas for getting it wrapped up. Best of luck.

Looks bad and not what the plans calls for. They need to redo it and the steps if filling the holes looks bad. Their stupid mistake.

Scone911 - It is funny you mentioned the builder getting ready to bolt. About 1 or 1.5 months ago the project manager was having a conversation with me at the site about how they never expected to be at the house this long... He said they normally would have been long done with the house but with the weather we had last year and some hiccups with the town we got stalled.. Then he got into a conversation about how they are "no longer making money" with this project.. Last week I looked at our construction loan online and saw the bank has disbursed most of the funds with only 65k remaining.. Granted the majority of the house is done.. They really just have carpet, paint touchups, install hvac condensors, and fix some electrical issues.. As far as the outside goes they just have to do the driveway, new sidewalks, walkways, and minor grading in the front of house.. But to err on the side of caution I put a phone call into the bank and told them to make a note on the account that no funds are to be disbursed without speaking directly to me due to remaining items in the house that are still unfinished.. So at least at this point they cant bolt with all of they money.. Although I doubt they will bolt with the few things they have left..

Now.. As far as my post meeting update... By the time I got to the site the builder already had the railing cut out of the steps and the post removed.. He told me that he has no idea why the installer made the decision that he did, but assured me that they will be replacing all the treads that were cut into and they will do the railing over.. So the issue is being resolved..

Removing the post is an excellent idea. The awkwardness of this design is that the post and the railing are trying to occupy the same tight space and neither is functional. You could get rid of one or the other or both and the entrance would be greatly improved.

JDS - The post was only removed to gain access to the treads for removal.. It will have to be replaced as it is a structural support for the second floor.. I also believe that the manufacturer calls for the predrilling for railing attachments to be done with no load..

^ Very cool. That was smart to call the bank and give them a heads up. Although sometimes these guys will just walk away from the last few things that need to be done, because they can make more money on the next job. They might skip the last 10% hold back. Which is o.k., except for liens. I hope the bank is getting lien releases for all monies paid, and you have copies?

Railing is not usable with the pillar there. Think of an old person trying to get up the steps. They need to be able to hold the railing and go straight up. They cant do that with the pillar there they have to let go and move right to do so.

Same coming down, they have to go a step without a railing then move over to use the railing.

Also, what is with the vent pipe at the front entrance...??? It shouldn't terminate there. http://plumbingpros.com/pdf/dwvents.pdf Page 14

Scone911 - yes.. The bank requires that lien releases are provided and I get copies every time a draw is made..

Vith - That is not a vent.. That was a pipe they installed prior to knowing where the downspouts were being installed.. The wanted to cover the seepage pit up and thought that they "may" have had to run a downspout to that location.. In the end they did not need it so they will be cutting, capping and burying in the ground...

Is this the house where the builder installed a non-approved kitchen sink in the granite counter top? Did that get rectified?

Scone911 is right. Builders HATE "the punch list". You could be ahead to let your GC depart without the final payment and hire these things done yourself once you have Occupancy.

Chisue - Yes.. Same builder with sink issue lol... Yes that was rectified.. Granite guy came in and cut the new sink in.. Went from 20 inch to 27inch..

I can't see how there could be any load on the post since the floor above is supported by the adjacent walls. Its a feature without function and so is the railing. Jamming them together in such a tight space is unnecessary and awkward. Both could be removed and not be missed or you could leave one of them as currently designed. The problem from the beginning has been the two elements trying to occupy the same space.

IMO you should get your architect back to offer a design solution rather than stubbornly recreate the original design.

The second floor comes out past the first floor and overhangs by about 2 feet.. This is why we needed the post for the corner of the second floor.. Ill post a more distant photo below and you can see how the overhang is.. The photo is from earlier in the build.. I can get a better one when I return home.. I spoke with the architect about the post and he said that it does not have a huge load, however it is definitely something he will not sign off on to remove and states it is definitely needed for the structural integrity.. I believe the installed post is rated to 10,000lbs.. Ditching the railing is also not an option as we have elderly relatives who would utilize the railing..

Well, there's irrefutable evidence that the post is not structural; the house was actually framed without it. If it was carrying any load there would be temporary support below it.

If the architect had done a 3D model he would have seen what is so plainly evident in the photo: there is not enough space on the short landing projection for a post and a guard rail.

You seem to be missing my point. If you take out the useless post, the guard rail will be fine as it is. Or if you take out the useless guard rail, the post will be fine as it is. A simple handrail can be installed on the far wall where it should have been in the first place because it can extend beyond the lowest step instead of stopping almost 4 ft off the ground. Such an awkward termination would be difficult and possibly dangerous for the elderly although they might like the old fashioned "lambs tongue" from the 50's.

POST

COLUMN

TRIMMED POST???

This is my current favorite discussion. How someone can come up with such a column/handrail solution is beyond my comprehension.

I am thinking it will catch on.

The single post is too visually flimsy and looks like a temporary support. Could you run trim boards across the bottom of the overhang (front and side) and add a second column at the right of the stoop? Then you could have handrails on both sides of the steps up TO the stoop. (You may need something to keep anyone from falling off the SIDE of the stoop.) This would frame the entry, adding needed importance to it.

What your architect designed looks like a secondary entrance even a back door. Since this is your front door it needs to be more welcoming with simpler stronger detailing and no fussy guardrails.

This is all I can think of given the stage of the construction.

I agree with Chisue on the trim board idea. Looks like the elevation drawing includes something along those lines.

Could the door swing be changed so that a continuous useful railing could be installed on the right side?

I tried a square and round column but they might be too grand for the small entry. In any case, this element should be a clean simple post or a formal column directly under the corner rather than a trimmed up post/fake column set back from the corner. With the majority of the facade given up to the garage the entry needs to be very strong in order to provide some balance.

I think I would just remove the metal guard rail, add vertical cellular PVC (Azak, etc) to the face of the post flush with new horizontal ("water table") PVC above (like the contract drawing) and wrap the steps (or leave them as they are) and add a black powder coated handrail at the wall. You might get the GC to pay for some of that work but I would not let that issue get in the way of improving the design. I suspect you saved money with this architect and builder; now its time to spend some of it.

I think JDS's solution is a much better one. That railing and post looked awful.

Plus more importantly, as others said, it would be impossible for someone infirm to use that handrail. My mother was infirm and now my Dad is. He needs the handrail when he goes up the stairs. It needs to start at the bottom of the stair and not at the first stair rail. At the top of the stair, it can't stop where the post is because there is then nothing for an infirm person to grab onto to hoist themselves up that last step. It's a fall waiting to happen if you don't correct it.

Code requirements for handrails in residences are not as concerned with safety as they are for public use buildings so it is necessary to find a better standard.

In a residence the handrail can start and stop above the top and bottom risers.

In a public use building a handrail must continue to slope for the distance of one tread beyond the bottom riser and must extend horizontally a foot beyond the top riser. And a wall-mounted handrail must terminate by returning to the wall.

The only way that level of safety could be achieved on the OP's house would be to mount the handrail on the far-side wall. If that were to be done, the existing guard/railing next to the post would not only be less safe, it would be redundant, so it could be left in place or, better yet, removed.

I have had a great deal of experience with elderly access; my father had Parkinson's and died from a fall at 90, my father in law lived to be 104 and I am frequently asked to make accessibility modifications to houses for the owners' parents. I have never found any code, inspector, contractor or fabricator to be very helpful.

In any case, we need trim board under the projection, yes?

I like the beefed-up column and I like the stairs wrapped around to the side.

I guess there's no way to have a second column to flank the entrance AND have a useful handrail along the wall.

Now...where to put the house numbers? LOL

I still think the door swing should change to be most effective with the right side railing. Anything from a floor plan perspective to prevent this?

Dantastic - Changing the door swing is not possible.. Well I guess its possible but will not work with the floor plan.. When you enter the door way you have a wall approximately 10ft to your right.. This is the wall the door currently swings open along.. The opposite side is the entry to the office.. If we change the door swing you will effectively block the office door upon entering and you would enter with the door to your left and wall to your right..

Since this is now a re-design thread, I'd second JDS's solution. Though I rather doubt the builder will re-build the concrete stoop gratis. Nice to hear he took immediate responsibility for not following the architect's original plans--whether anyone here likes them or not.

I have had a great deal of experience with elderly access; my father had Parkinson's

As did my Mother. It's a horrible, horrible disease.

It should make no difference from which side the door opens. If someone can climb a stair they can get to the other side of the door. But I would be very careful about mats and throw rugs in the entry path. Not lifting feet enough is the cause of most falls by the elderly and it is not something they are aware of.

I have an aluminum ramp to my front door landing and a small aluminum ramp that can be placed at the door threshold. Be aware that the elderly are always slowly losing mobility although it is usually not noticeable to anyone who sees them often. While you are worrying about steps and handrails you should also be thinking about where the future ramp will go.

A ramp could be placed at the left side of the steps if the column were not there. I predict you will remove the post some day for that reason. Now is the time to ask the builder how he framed the overhang. I will bet he framed it to not need a column in order to speed construction as evidenced by the construction photo. Don't ask the architect; its highly unlikely he knows what the builder did. Also be aware that the ramp slope does not need to meet an accessabilty code standard; for a private residence it is reasonable to assume that someone in a wheelchair would have assistance or use a motorized chair. That has been my experience in the 13 yeas I have had a ramp.

The door swing isn't a huge deal, but I believe having the railing and doorknob on the same side is safer and more natural.

The JDS drawings are a huge improvement.

One solution would be to remove a portion of the column two inches below the top of the handrail and eight inches above the top of the handrail, leaving the upper and lower portions of the column. This would allow someone to continuously hold onto the railing while passing the column. I am surprised your builder has not come up with this solution. I admit this may not potentially look as good as JDS's sketches; but if you do it my way, post pictures.