Originally Posted By: jgallant This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
"Under-floor venting originated as a cure for moisture problems in houses built right after World War II. In the rush to provide affordable housing for returning soldiers, excavation for basements was abandoned and houses were built with short basements called crawl spaces. This was a new style of construction, and almost immediately homeowners began noticing condensation on the wooden floor framing above crawl spaces. Concerned about rot and other moisture-related problems, builders searched for an answer."
So my questions to you is; When you see an unheated crawl space with no venting or grossly inadequate venting by todays standards, but where a good vapor barrier is installed and where no moisture problems (WDO/WDI, standing water, effloresence, sediment stains, etc.) are visible, do you as a matter of course recommend that additional venting be installed? If so, even if the house is many decades old with no related problems to date?[/url]
Originally Posted By: rmoore This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jim…
As we are normally talking about old (50+ years) homes, I've taken a "test of time" approach to these. Unless they're in the valleys a lot of the homes around here are built on glacial till...very sandy, rocky stuff that drains extremely well. When I see an old home without vents but absolutely bone dry, I report the lack of ventilation to "modern standards" but also state that the area was dry with no signs of moisture problems and leave it at that.
WSDA rules for conducive conditions...
(v) Inadequate ventilation: Where there is detectable excessive moisture content in the wood of a substructure and/or an active infestation of WDO's which can be attributed to the lack of sufficient ventilation in the substructure. (WSPCA says much the same).
Going by the above it really doesn't seem necessary to require vents if dry.
I do recommend moisture barriers when not present in these OLD homes even if the soil is dry dust. Possibly not needed, but the structural pest inspector in me requires them even if only to prevent the next SPI from calling it when the home is resold. However, I'm not even sure about this. There really isn't anything in the WSDA or WSPCA rules that require bare DRY soil to be covered...but I don't see any harm in it.
-- Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com
Originally Posted By: rmoore This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Charlie…
Yes, in a newer home, in a heartbeat, but we're talking about old homes. Just as we may recommend improvement to the attic insulation (after updating the KT wiring  ), I think a moisture barrier is a worthwhile reportable upgrade even if the soil and structure is bone dry. But is it a repair item? I'm less inclined to think so after pondering Jim's initial post on venting. Nothing new...I'm second guessing myself constantly.
You did kind of prove my point about the next inspector calling it though. My goal is that my client's home would receive a clean inspection if they re-sold in, say 5 years. That would, of course involve taking care of everything (repairs, upgrades, maintenance, etc) in the report along with periodic maintenance and needed component replacement. Not likely, I know, but I can dream.
-- Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com