Why Existing Buildings Are Often Harder Than New Construction

Many property owners assume that renovating an existing building should be simpler than constructing a new one.

After all, the building is already there. The foundation exists. The walls are standing. Utilities are connected. It seems logical that modifying an existing structure would require less work than starting from scratch.

In practice, existing buildings are often more difficult, more complicated, and sometimes more expensive to design than new construction.

The Unknowns Are the Biggest Challenge

With new construction, architects and engineers begin with a clean slate.

The site can be surveyed. Soil conditions can be investigated. Structural systems can be designed intentionally. Utilities can be planned before construction begins.

Existing buildings rarely offer that level of certainty.

Many older buildings have incomplete records. Original drawings may be missing, inaccurate, or never have existed. Previous renovations may not have been documented. Conditions hidden behind walls and above ceilings are often unknown until construction begins.

The challenge is not designing the new work. The challenge is determining exactly what already exists.

Existing Conditions Are Not Always What They Appear

A building may appear straightforward during an initial walkthrough.

Once construction begins, however, hidden conditions often emerge.

Common discoveries include:

  • Structural modifications made without documentation.
  • Abandoned utilities concealed within walls.
  • Unpermitted additions.
  • Water damage.
  • Deteriorated framing.
  • Inadequate foundations.
  • Asbestos-containing materials.
  • Electrical systems that no longer meet current standards.

Every discovery has the potential to affect design, cost, and schedule.

Working Around Existing Constraints

New construction allows the design team to place systems where they work best.

Existing buildings do not provide that luxury.

Architects and engineers must work around:

  • Existing structural framing.
  • Existing utility connections.
  • Property line limitations.
  • Existing floor elevations.
  • Roof configurations.
  • Adjacent occupied spaces.
  • Existing accessibility limitations.

Instead of designing the ideal solution, the design team often develops the best solution that can fit within existing constraints.

Modern Codes Meet Older Buildings

Many existing buildings were constructed under building codes that differ significantly from today’s requirements.

While older buildings are not always required to meet every current code provision, modifications frequently trigger upgrades.

Common areas affected include:

  • Accessibility compliance.
  • Fire and life safety requirements.
  • Structural upgrades.
  • Energy efficiency standards.
  • Mechanical and electrical systems.

Determining which requirements apply can be a complex process that depends on the scope of work, occupancy type, and local jurisdiction.

Coordination Is More Difficult

In new construction, consultants coordinate systems before construction begins.

In existing buildings, the design team must coordinate new systems with conditions that may not be fully visible.

Mechanical ducts may conflict with existing beams.

Plumbing lines may encounter unexpected obstructions.

Electrical upgrades may reveal insufficient service capacity.

Every new system must be carefully integrated into an environment that was often never intended to accommodate it.

Occupied Buildings Create Additional Challenges

Many renovation projects occur while a business remains operational or residents continue occupying the building.

This introduces challenges that do not exist on vacant sites.

Construction activities may need to be phased. Temporary utility connections may be required. Noise, dust, and access restrictions must be managed. Safety considerations become more complicated.

Maintaining operations during construction often requires extensive planning long before work begins.

Historic Buildings Add Another Layer of Complexity

Historic buildings present many of the challenges found in conventional renovations, along with additional preservation requirements.

Owners may need to maintain historic character while upgrading building systems, improving accessibility, and meeting modern safety standards.

Balancing preservation goals with current building requirements often requires creative solutions and careful coordination with local review agencies.

Why Renovations Require More Investigation

One of the most valuable investments in an existing building project is investigation before design begins.

Site measurements, utility research, structural evaluations, exploratory openings, and building assessments help reduce uncertainty.

No investigation can eliminate every surprise, but identifying issues early typically leads to better decisions, more accurate budgets, and fewer construction delays.

The Bottom Line

New construction begins with a blank sheet of paper.

Existing buildings begin with decades of decisions, modifications, assumptions, and unknown conditions that must first be understood before meaningful design can occur.

For that reason, renovating an existing building is often less about creating something new and more about solving a puzzle. The most successful projects are those that acknowledge the complexity of the existing conditions, investigate thoroughly, and develop solutions that work with the building rather than against it.

Why Your Project Isn’t Stuck in Plan Check—And What Actually Is

One of the most common statements we hear from property owners is:

“My project is stuck in plan check.”

In reality, projects are rarely delayed because they are physically sitting on someone’s desk. More often, the delay is caused by an unresolved issue that prevents the reviewer from approving the project. Understanding the difference can help owners make better decisions and avoid costly schedule impacts.

What Is Plan Check?

Plan check is the process where city reviewers examine construction documents to verify compliance with building codes, zoning regulations, accessibility requirements, fire safety standards, and other applicable regulations.

The purpose of plan check is not to redesign the project. It is to confirm that the proposed construction complies with the rules established by the jurisdiction.

When reviewers identify issues, they issue correction comments that must be addressed before approval can be granted.

The Real Cause of Most Delays

Most projects are not delayed because the city is reviewing them. They are delayed because a problem has been identified that requires a solution.

Common examples include:

  • Missing information on the plans.
  • Incomplete engineering calculations.
  • Accessibility compliance issues.
  • Fire department requirements.
  • Zoning conflicts.
  • Site constraints discovered during review.
  • Conflicts between architectural and engineering drawings.
  • Required approvals from outside agencies.

Once these issues are identified, the project enters a cycle of revisions, responses, and resubmittals. This is where most schedule impacts occur.

Not All Corrections Are Equal

Some corrections can be resolved in minutes.

A missing note, incorrect code reference, or drafting error may require only a minor revision.

Other comments can trigger significant redesign.

For example:

  • A parking deficiency may require site redesign.
  • A fire access issue may affect building placement.
  • An accessibility conflict may impact floor plans and elevations.
  • Structural comments may require engineering revisions.
  • Utility requirements may affect the entire site layout.

A single correction can sometimes create multiple new design challenges that must also be resolved.

The Domino Effect

Building projects are highly interconnected systems.

Changing one component often affects several others.

Moving a wall may affect:

  • Structural framing.
  • Accessibility clearances.
  • Fire separations.
  • Mechanical systems.
  • Electrical layouts.
  • Plumbing routing.

Because of this, what appears to be a simple correction may require coordination across multiple consultants before a complete response can be submitted.

Why Similar Projects Receive Different Comments

Many owners become frustrated when they hear that a similar project was approved elsewhere or approved years ago.

Every project has unique circumstances.

Different sites have different constraints. Codes change. Agency interpretations evolve. Existing conditions vary. Individual jurisdictions may have local requirements that exceed minimum code standards.

A project approved in one city may require substantial modifications in another.

The Fastest Way Through Plan Check

The fastest path through plan check is usually not to argue every comment.

Instead:

  1. Understand the actual issue being raised.
  2. Determine whether the concern is valid.
  3. Identify the most efficient solution.
  4. Coordinate revisions across all affected disciplines.
  5. Submit a complete and organized response.

A well-prepared response package often saves far more time than a rushed resubmittal.

What Owners Can Do

Owners can significantly improve project schedules by:

  • Providing complete project information early.
  • Making decisions promptly.
  • Responding quickly to consultant requests.
  • Avoiding major design changes during review.
  • Understanding that corrections are often problem-solving exercises, not administrative paperwork.

The more quickly unresolved issues can be addressed, the more quickly approvals can be obtained.

The Bottom Line

Most projects are not truly “stuck in plan check.”

They are waiting for a specific problem to be solved.

The permit process is less about moving paper and more about resolving conflicts between the proposed project and applicable regulations. The projects that move through review most efficiently are usually not the simplest projects—they are the projects where issues are identified early, solutions are developed quickly, and responses are coordinated effectively.

Understanding that distinction can help owners focus on the real obstacle and keep their project moving forward.

How is a load-bearing wall constructed?

Ah, the mythical load-bearing wall. The act of touching it wrong will destroy your entire house. Your friends and neighbors will laugh and ridicule you because like dragons and demons you are expected to accept that they exist, and hope you never encounter one.

Back to the question.

A load-bearing wall is any wall that is holding up a significant amount of weight. Much of the time, if you aren’t familiar with this you won’t know how much weight the wall supports, where the weight is coming from, and lastly how the wall is supporting this weight.

At the end of the day the point of the wall is to not move under these conditions. That’s it.

There are two methods to determine what you need. The engineering method where loads are determined and disputed across the structure, or the contractor method. “That looks about right.”

Let’s be honest. You’re going to using the contractor method because the other method involves math, and nobody likes math. If your wall is more than 20′ tall or has another floor sitting on it, you really need help. Otherwise…

So, the parts of the load-bearing wall.

First, your holding something up, and you might even be replacing an existing load-bearing wall. Either way you need to know what you’re holding up. With new construction up build your wall then place your weight on top. In existing construction you prop the weight up and fill in the wall.

Next is the wall itself. You’ve got 2×4 or 2×6, doesn’t matter really. You want your studs every 16″. There are other spacings, but this one is quite strong and lines up with common materials you can get. You need a bottom plate which is laid on the ground to connect the studs together and to connect the wall to the floor/foundation. You should consider making this out of pressure treated wood if your wall is an exterior wall as it deals better with moisture. On the top you have two plates. If the wall is longer than the plate stagger the seams so the plate acts like a continuous piece, that way it doesn’t matter what its holding up. Each stud gets two 16 penny (16d) nails top and bottom.

Next is the foundation or footing. This what anchors your wall so it doesn’t move. Most floors are lightweight and load-bearing walls carry a lot of weight so we give them their own footing. Now unless you’ve got something unusually heavy (you’re trying to do this yourself, so probably not) a footing 12″ wide and 12″ deep for the length of your wall should work. Feel free to make it bigger. Your footing needs some rebar because you’re trying bend concrete and concrete doesn’t like that (because math). Use either a #3 or #4 near the top and another near the bottom. #4 will work better. Don’t go better than a #5 or go putting more rebar in your footing (again because math). Its best to place the top of your footing where you want the bottom of your wall to go, but your wall can make up the difference.

Lastly, connections. Your wall should snuggly fit between what your holding up and your footing. No gaps, you need to have good craftsmanship here. On the top, everything that is sitting on your wall needs a couple of nails or a framing clip (a sheet metal thing you nail to both parts). On the bottom, you either cast connectors into your footing or you’ll literally shoot nails through the bottom into the concrete (shotpins). You’ll need one every few feet for the length of the wall.

So now you have a load-bearing wall. But wait, some little know-it-all snot keeps bringing up something called lateral that will kill everybody. Well, maybe you need to worry about lateral maybe you don’t. Again to find out you need math. But since we established you don’t have a good relation with math we’ll use the contractor method again. Lateral means wind or earthquakes are trying to push you’re wall over, which would be bad. So, when you put drywall or plywood over your studs, you’re going to use extra nails. Like double what you were planning. Same with the shotpins on the bottom of the wall.

So, now you really have a load-bearing wall. Yes. But, again let’s be honest. Do you really want to go through all of this and still wonder if you built it right and strong enough? Just go out and find the math guy (engineer, architect, actual contractor), and have them tell you what you need. Them you can sleep at night, not wondering why the wall creaks at night.

What are the different types of loads on buildings?

The typical loads are:

  • Dead loads – the weight of the building itself (concrete, wood, metal, permanently attached equipment…)
  • Live loads – the rated weight of everything to be placed in the building (people, furniture…)

In structural engineering there are other loads that need to be accounted for by code (per ASCE 7), if they do or could exist:

  • Dead load
  • Earthquake load
  • Flood load
  • Lateral earth/water pressure
  • Live load
  • Roof live load
  • Rain load/ Ponding load
  • Snow load
  • Wind load

All of these are calculated in different weighted combinations.

And then there are special case loads for ice, waves, or explosives.

How can you tell if your driveway was built with cheap materials (rocks)?

Well, driveways are made with cheap materials. The difference is how it is built.

Typically, you want 3″-4″ of concrete thickness in your driveway. 6″ if large trucks drive on it regularly.

If your driveway has rocks larger than a golf ball you’d want to add about the same thickness. But, rocks are okay as long as they don’t pose a driving hazard.

Pretty much anything as hard as a brick will do fine in a driveway.

Now back to the question.

Bad signs:

  • Wood laid in the concrete as elements.
  • Cracks. Most cracks are quality control issues unless you can stick a twig into one. Then things are moving either due to soil conditions are something like a nearby tree.
  • If you have cracks and can see that the concrete thickness is 2″ thick or less.

What is the difference between ancient Roman cement and modern Portland cement?

Romans use what is called saltwater cement and we use portland cement. Both are the binder for concrete.

We can tell by analysis of roman concrete what the composition is but there is debate about the formula used. This is likely because like modern cement there is a large number of combinations and proportions that result in cement. Two things we know very well, they used a lot of pozzlin and they cured the mixture in forms in saltwater.

The romans pretty much used concrete to form bricks of concrete. Bricks of all sizes. The saltwater curing process required submerging the concrete in the saltwater so forms were needed, hence the bricks.

As far as quality and strength we really only see the most durable examples so what remains may be less typical than it seems. Also, it has had a long time for any residual curing to occur.

Modern portland cement and thereby modern concrete doesn’t need emersion in water much less saltwater. We just mix it in and pour it into any forms we’ve setup. As such, modern concrete is more versatile than what the Romans had. Also, we use reinforcement, which the Romans didn’t use, to over come the weak relative tensile strength of concrete so that we can make much more slender constructions.

Is aluminum roofing better than shingles?

Firstly, there are different types of both aluminum roofing and shingles.

Aluminum shingles – some people like the look, many don’t. They are fairly fragile to impact but otherwise can last 10–15 years. Inexpensive. Aluminum requires precautions when touching other metals.

Aluminum sheet or standing seam roofing – very distinctive look. Considered one of the best sloped roof types for longevity. Expensive.

Wood shingles – Inexpensive and durable. It is combustible which has restricted its use in many areas.

Asphaltic or composition shingles – Inexpensive and very durable. Generally considered to be one of the best roofs, but is also considered to be less attractive than other options.

Does adding glue inside a screw hole strengthen the connection of a wood screw?

Okay, there are several things at play here.

Screws are a mechanical fastener that cuts into the wood and holds because you’d need to either pull the plug of wood out also or pull hard enough for things to sufficiently deform for the screw to slip past. Now, in each case the screw will likely break before either occurs.

Glue does have mechanical properties once hardened (for the same reasons as above), but it is primarily known for its chemical bonds. Due to the nature of the materials involved wood glue, which will penetrate into the wood itself to a small degree, owes most of its strength to the mechanical bond (at least in this conversation).

So, if you just coat a screw with glue and screw the fastener in… You’ll pretty much have exactly the same values as the screw by itself.

If there is an existing hole/void that your putting the screw into the glue will aid as a filler. Its worth noting that most wood glues shrink as they dry so the interface between screw-glue and glue-wood is likely to be partial at best. But, if we assume that the whole void has been filled by screw and glue… You should have nearly the same value as the screw, but probably a little less. And that’s your best case scenario.

Basically, the glue would just act as a wood filler.

Why aren’t more homes built out of cinder blocks since they’re cheap and stronger than wood?

On the surface that sounds reasonable, but the answer requires more.

As several others have mentioned cinder blocks are different from CMU (concrete masonry units) but still the price is similar. A block may cost about $1.00 ea while wood studs are $2–3 ea. You need one stud every 16″ plus bottom plate, double top plate plus sheathing, let’s call it $30 per 16″ section. Block takes 12 blocks to get to the same height so $12 per 16″ section.

Block wins let’s all go home. But, wait!

Studs require nails, screws, and hardware. Block walls require rebar, anchor hardware, and grout. And studs require less than half the labor that block does. Also, block buildings require much sturdier floors and roofs as block walls can exert much greater forces on those elements.

In general, wood framed structures tend to be the easiest and cheapest to construct. We usually only consider things like block construction when there is an increased concern about fire and egress.

Typically, a structure that is constructed out of block and is cheaper than wood frame is a dangerously under constructed structure.

Are skyscrapers now being made out of wood? Why would construction companies do this?

Historically there have been a number of factors limiting wood framed high rises.

First, has been combustibility. With such large populations that have to pass through such narrow areas such as elevator and stair cores an increase of possible fire made such designs unfeasible. North America and Europe had hard caps on wood framed buildings at about 5 stories or 60 feet in height. Since that time we’ve developed several strategies to combat this. Better controlled egress, better fire resistant wood framed construction, and lastly wood framed systems that can maintain their structural properties even during a fire. The most resistive element to building height has been combustibility. Once that threat is eliminated is falls to other factors.

Second, wood sources have been yielding weaker and weaker wood materials. Over time we’ve come up with solutions. By combining layers or chips or wood fiber with resins and adhesives we’ve come up with scalable wood products of great strength compared to “natural” wood members. Additionally, since these can be “layered up” they can be produced at any size at any length. Suddenly, you can produce a beam or column several feet wide by several feet thick that is over a hundred feet long. We’ve never been able to do that before.

Once you have those two items addressed you now have a material that can compete with steel and concrete. And yes, we are starting to build high rises out of wood now.