Questions and Answers (Q&A) Forgotten Chicago Forum
Have a question about a specific element in Chicago's history? Ask Away!
Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
Chistorian51
()
Date: November 10, 2014 10:34AM
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141110/humboldt-park/is-this-block-humboldt-park-sinking-residents-want-know
Anybody have any info on the homes or block mentioned in the article? Most of the city sits on sandy soil, all if not all old homes lean to one side as the foundation "settles" into the soil over the years.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2014 10:37AM by Chistorian51.
Anybody have any info on the homes or block mentioned in the article? Most of the city sits on sandy soil, all if not all old homes lean to one side as the foundation "settles" into the soil over the years.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2014 10:37AM by Chistorian51.
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
nordsider
()
Date: November 10, 2014 12:24PM
Humboldt Park was built on a marshy area. A Google Map Street View of the Kedzie street surface between Beach Avenue and LeMoyne Avenue shows multi cracks; which heavy truck traffic, passing over uneven surfaces must surely add considerable stress and vibration to nearby homes.
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
PKDickman
()
Date: November 10, 2014 03:03PM
I doubt it's the traffic, I live on North Ave which sees a lot more heavy trucks. There is a worn Elec vault cover that the westbound bus hits every half hour at night. It rings my building like a bell and I don't see that much trouble. Frankly, that block of Kedzie is much less potholed than the same one on California.
They're on the fringe of the 1872 corps of engineers map, but it shows it as grassland. certainly no marshier than the rest of the north side. Robinson's atlas shows nothing special, Sanborn maps don't show brick basements, and they all seem to have been built by different builders in a mix of styles.
My guess is that they just got built on a soft patch. Nobody's fault really. The settling looks no worse than a lot of Chicago. I passed a block on Washtenaw the other day where four buildings seemed to be leaning several degrees to the north,
They would have been better off keeping their mouths shut. Now any prospective buyers will be forewarned.
They're on the fringe of the 1872 corps of engineers map, but it shows it as grassland. certainly no marshier than the rest of the north side. Robinson's atlas shows nothing special, Sanborn maps don't show brick basements, and they all seem to have been built by different builders in a mix of styles.
My guess is that they just got built on a soft patch. Nobody's fault really. The settling looks no worse than a lot of Chicago. I passed a block on Washtenaw the other day where four buildings seemed to be leaning several degrees to the north,
They would have been better off keeping their mouths shut. Now any prospective buyers will be forewarned.
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
PKDickman
()
Date: November 10, 2014 05:49PM
I went over and took a look, and saw a tempest in a teapot.
8 different buildings with similar characteristics that I think are the cause of the problems.
All with shallow basements (read shallow footings), Massive masonry porches with open/unconditioned stairs to the basement beneath them. All face the park and have nothing to break the wind.
The sidewalls showed no cracking. Only 1 of 8 showed any settling problems not related to the porch. Only 1 (different one) has had any serious work done to the porch in the last 30 years and I couldn't tell how well it was done.
Although Chicago's minimum depth for footings is the 42" frostline, that assumes both sides are protected from the weather.
In the case of the basement stairs, the footings are 4 feet from the weather on the dirt side and 6 inches from the weather on the stairwell side.
A hundred years ago, the builders should have set the porch footings a couple feet deeper. Now (possibly aggravated by the polar vortex), they are heaving.
Except for the one guy, everything I saw could be explained by differential settling of the buildings and the porches.
That one guy has bigger problems.
8 different buildings with similar characteristics that I think are the cause of the problems.
All with shallow basements (read shallow footings), Massive masonry porches with open/unconditioned stairs to the basement beneath them. All face the park and have nothing to break the wind.
The sidewalls showed no cracking. Only 1 of 8 showed any settling problems not related to the porch. Only 1 (different one) has had any serious work done to the porch in the last 30 years and I couldn't tell how well it was done.
Although Chicago's minimum depth for footings is the 42" frostline, that assumes both sides are protected from the weather.
In the case of the basement stairs, the footings are 4 feet from the weather on the dirt side and 6 inches from the weather on the stairwell side.
A hundred years ago, the builders should have set the porch footings a couple feet deeper. Now (possibly aggravated by the polar vortex), they are heaving.
Except for the one guy, everything I saw could be explained by differential settling of the buildings and the porches.
That one guy has bigger problems.
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
WayOutWardell
()
Date: November 10, 2014 06:03PM
Great analysis, PKD. Two questions for you:
You mention that the Sanborn doesn't show brick basements. Are these then concrete or were they possibly still fieldstone?
What would be considered a shallow basement?
You mention that the Sanborn doesn't show brick basements. Are these then concrete or were they possibly still fieldstone?
What would be considered a shallow basement?
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
PKDickman
()
Date: November 10, 2014 06:48PM
WayOutWardell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great analysis, PKD. Two questions for you:
>
> You mention that the Sanborn doesn't show brick
> basements. Are these then concrete or were they
> possibly still fieldstone?
>
> What would be considered a shallow basement?
I couldn't see the foundations, but I assumed field stone. We used it for a long time.
Laborers can lay fieldstone, you need machines to mix that much concrete. The mixer truck was patented in 1916 but wasn't common until the '40s.
By shallow, I mean the floor is less than 5 ft below grade. These were full garden apt type basements. with 3 ft tall windows. As opposed to a full depth cellar or something with little 1 ft windows or lightwells.
This isn't a problem as far as the building is concerned, just the porches.
Even then, they lasted a hundred years. What do you want, eggs in your beer.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great analysis, PKD. Two questions for you:
>
> You mention that the Sanborn doesn't show brick
> basements. Are these then concrete or were they
> possibly still fieldstone?
>
> What would be considered a shallow basement?
I couldn't see the foundations, but I assumed field stone. We used it for a long time.
Laborers can lay fieldstone, you need machines to mix that much concrete. The mixer truck was patented in 1916 but wasn't common until the '40s.
By shallow, I mean the floor is less than 5 ft below grade. These were full garden apt type basements. with 3 ft tall windows. As opposed to a full depth cellar or something with little 1 ft windows or lightwells.
This isn't a problem as far as the building is concerned, just the porches.
Even then, they lasted a hundred years. What do you want, eggs in your beer.
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
nordsider
()
Date: November 11, 2014 09:14AM
A comment about truck traffic, from the DNAinfo article:
Ed Kennedy, who manages an apartment building at 1452 N. Kedzie . . . said the problem is exacerbated by trucks that use the street, saying, "The buildings shake when they come driving through here."
Ed Kennedy, who manages an apartment building at 1452 N. Kedzie . . . said the problem is exacerbated by trucks that use the street, saying, "The buildings shake when they come driving through here."
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
Chistorian51
()
Date: November 11, 2014 11:49AM
Is that portion of Kedzie weight restricted for trucks?
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
nordsider
()
Date: November 11, 2014 12:14PM
Chistorian51 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that portion of Kedzie weight restricted for
> trucks?
It does not appear to apply to Kedzie, south of North Ave:
Chicago Truck Route Planning Study
http://www.transportchicago.org/uploads/5/7/2/0/5720074/2c3_truckroute.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that portion of Kedzie weight restricted for
> trucks?
It does not appear to apply to Kedzie, south of North Ave:
Chicago Truck Route Planning Study
http://www.transportchicago.org/uploads/5/7/2/0/5720074/2c3_truckroute.pdf
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
WayOutWardell
()
Date: November 11, 2014 12:48PM
PKDickman Wrote:
>
> This isn't a problem as far as the building is
> concerned, just the porches.
Yeah, I didn't think the porches were truly connected to the foundation. The building I'm in now has a similar design and the space under the porch is just dirt fill.
>
> This isn't a problem as far as the building is
> concerned, just the porches.
Yeah, I didn't think the porches were truly connected to the foundation. The building I'm in now has a similar design and the space under the porch is just dirt fill.
Re: Sinking Block in Humboldt Park
Posted by:
PKDickman
()
Date: November 11, 2014 02:54PM
WayOutWardell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PKDickman Wrote:
> >
> > This isn't a problem as far as the building is
> > concerned, just the porches.
>
> Yeah, I didn't think the porches were truly
> connected to the foundation. The building I'm in
> now has a similar design and the space under the
> porch is just dirt fill.
Back in the '90s,I had to rebuild my rear basement stair well. The drain tile from my roof was broken underground and had washed out the mortar and the wall was bowing a foot in the middle.
I took down 2 of the 3 walls to the footings and relaid it stone for stone.
Here's what I learned about fieldstone/uncoursed rubble foundations.
The footings are great honking slabs of limestone, maybe 2 ft by 6 ft.
The walls on mine were 16" thick laid up roughly in 2 wythes. The random sizes of the stone let the inner joint lap over each other and keyed them together.
The mortar is not really part of the compressive strength. It seals the gaps and keeps the stones from tilting or popping out. The weight of the stones squeezes out the mortar until the two layers touch.
Although the outside corners of the well were lapped over one another, the walls and footings were not in any way keyed to the foundation. They were just butted against the foundation walls.
This make sense. It they protruding walls collapsed, they would not take the building foundation with them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> PKDickman Wrote:
> >
> > This isn't a problem as far as the building is
> > concerned, just the porches.
>
> Yeah, I didn't think the porches were truly
> connected to the foundation. The building I'm in
> now has a similar design and the space under the
> porch is just dirt fill.
Back in the '90s,I had to rebuild my rear basement stair well. The drain tile from my roof was broken underground and had washed out the mortar and the wall was bowing a foot in the middle.
I took down 2 of the 3 walls to the footings and relaid it stone for stone.
Here's what I learned about fieldstone/uncoursed rubble foundations.
The footings are great honking slabs of limestone, maybe 2 ft by 6 ft.
The walls on mine were 16" thick laid up roughly in 2 wythes. The random sizes of the stone let the inner joint lap over each other and keyed them together.
The mortar is not really part of the compressive strength. It seals the gaps and keeps the stones from tilting or popping out. The weight of the stones squeezes out the mortar until the two layers touch.
Although the outside corners of the well were lapped over one another, the walls and footings were not in any way keyed to the foundation. They were just butted against the foundation walls.
This make sense. It they protruding walls collapsed, they would not take the building foundation with them.
