How a Clever Firewall Design Saved $300,000 in Construction Costs

One door in one of our buildings saved us $300,000. Not because of what the door is — because of what we found when we actually looked closely at the wall around it.

Under current construction standards, this building would need a sprinkler system installed throughout. That's the kind of unexpected renovation cost that can wreck a project's numbers. The building has a fire suppression wall, and the assumption was that the firewall ran straight through the entire building — which would have meant the sprinkler requirement applied everywhere.

It didn't. When we looked at the actual layout, the firewall doesn't go all the way through in a straight line, because one of the units — with its kitchen — sits in the path. The firewall zigzags around it. And because of that zigzag in the original design, we didn't have to put a sprinkler system throughout the building at all. Total saved: $300,000 in unexpected renovations.

The lesson isn't about firewalls specifically. It's that assumptions are expensive. Everyone "knew" how that wall ran, and acting on that assumption would have meant either paying for a sprinkler system we didn't need or budgeting for one and distorting the whole deal. Verifying how the building was actually built — instead of how people assumed it was built — was worth six figures.

Key takeaways

  • New construction standards would have required a sprinkler system throughout this building.
  • The firewall was assumed to run straight through the building — it actually zigzags around one of the units.
  • Because of that firewall layout, no building-wide sprinkler system was required.
  • Checking the real design instead of the assumed one saved $300,000 in unexpected renovations.

Watch the original Short: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AMXBCOKGWRs

Follow me for free investment real estate education!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

3 Houses in a Row: Why the Land Beside a Park Is Worth More Than the House

Image
On one street, there are three houses in a row — and my family owns all three. My wife and I own two of them, side by side, and my mom owns the third one right next door. People ask why we'd concentrate our buying on a single row of houses, and the answer is sitting right across the street: a park. That's the whole strategy. The houses themselves are modest, but they're not really what we bought. We bought the land under them, in that location. A park doesn't move. The amenity across the street is permanent, and over time the land in a spot like that is going to be worth way more than the house sitting on it. This is the oldest rule in real estate: location, location, location. Houses age, wear out, and eventually get torn down or rebuilt. Land in the right place just keeps getting scarcer and more valuable. When you're choosing between a nicer house in a weaker location and an ordinary house on great land, the great land is usually the better long-term buy. It'...
Read more

Incredible Residential Garage with a Mezzanine: You Could Rent Out the Garage for $700 a Month

Image
Here's a property where the garage is the headline act. It's so big I joke that you buy the garage and the house comes free — and honestly, it's the biggest residential garage I've ever seen. It's not just wide or deep, either: there's a full mezzanine level inside it. The house itself is really nice, but the garage is what makes this place an investor's kind of property. Most buyers walk through a home and judge it on bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchen finishes. Investors need to look at the extras, because extras are where the hidden income lives. A garage this size isn't just parking and storage — it's rentable space. Space like this could rent out for $700 a month, and that's income most buyers never even think to count when they're running their numbers. That's the lesson here. Two buyers can look at the exact same property and see completely different deals, because one of them only sees a house and the other sees a house plus a secon...
Read more

It's Cheaper to Own a Vacation Home Than to Rent One

Image
My mom couldn't afford to rent her vacation home — so she bought it instead. That sounds backwards until you run her numbers, and her numbers are exactly why she owns the place today instead of handing a landlord a small fortune every winter. Here's the math she walked me through. Renting the home in prime time would cost $23,000 Canadian a month. Broken down nightly, that's $545 US a night — and she likes to stay for three months at a time. Three months of prime-time rent adds up to roughly $75,000. As she put it, she doesn't have $75,000 to spend on a vacation rental. Most people don't. So she flipped the problem around. Instead of paying $75,000 in rent and having nothing to show for it, she bought the home. The place isn't a cost sitting empty the rest of the year, either — she rents it out for ten months, and the rental income is what carries the property while she's not there. Then comes the best part: because she owns it, she gets to stay there for tw...
Read more