# Odd footer for balcony 4x4 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 31, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712 "2011-08-31T02:07:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/1 "2011-08-31T02:07:00Z")
Last week I stayed in a condo in Stoneham, Quebec, Canada. I stepped onto the balcony and noticed that all the balconies were supported on these [odd cylindrical footers](http://www.seiglefamily.com/data/IMG_3909ecoform.JPG). My deck has concrete poured into holes in the ground. These are some sort of preformed pile or something. But the really odd thing was they were \*all \*off-center, with a corner of the post off the edge of the footer. Is this standard practice anywhere? Is it even acceptable practice? ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/2 "2011-08-31T02:26:17Z")
Empty tubes are put in holes in the ground, then filled with concrete. One big name in the market is Sonotube. Pretty standard now. The off-center thing just looks like shoddy workmanship to me. ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/3 "2011-08-31T03:18:11Z")
Yep, Sonotube is a common brand in the US. In addition to the shoddy workmanship shown in the photo, it’s also best practice to not have the post in contact with the concrete. It’s usual to embed a threaded rod in the wet concrete and use it to anchor the post. See [here](http://www.decks.com/article306.aspx). ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/4 "2011-08-31T13:13:48Z")
Interesting. I saw 6 of these and they were all off-center. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/5 "2011-08-31T13:25:38Z")
That was what made me think it was bad work rather than, say, one out-of-place footing. Unless you’re using the [Bigfoot pilings](http://www.bigfootsystems.com/), it’s relatively easy to knock a tube out of plumb while you’re back-filling. But _all of them_ suggests that you’re not even trying not to. Of course, it’s also possible that simple incompetence prevented whoever installed them from knowing what they were doing. Perhaps they had seen one somewhere that was off-center and thought that’s how they were supposed to be. But structurally, the part of the post which is unsupported is, as I understand it, now purely decorative. That deck is being supported by 6 2x2s or 3x3s or however much is actually transferring load to the footing. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/6 "2011-08-31T14:09:36Z")
IANAstructuralanything. those Canucks just aren’t used to using materials besides ice and snow for dwellings. those concrete cylinders are used as in ground piers. i don’t know what amount above ground they are allowed in its specification or what buildings codes there allow (there may be none or it only talks about which of the hundreds of types of snow can be used). my guess would be that much exposure would require a larger diameter pier. if 4x4 posts are required then that isn’t good because all of it isn’t resting on the pier. ---
**Author:** ![FluffyBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@FluffyBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FluffyBob)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/odd-footer-for-balcony-4x4/594712/7 "2011-08-31T14:12:34Z")
Three inches of bearing is what the Alberta building code allows for non engineered point loads. They allow as little 1 3/4 " for joists if you can believe it. For simple wood framing Quebec is probably no different since the provincial codes are all based off the same national code. Sono tubes get placed wrong or knocked while back-filling all the time. The whole row of pilings may be out or something else may be slightly out about the house itself leading to the deck being a few inches off. Most track built housing developments have all sub contractors on piece work with marginal rates, and site supers with multiple sites and and limited resources and little to no flexibility for changes to the plan. If it can pass inspection no one is going to lift a finger to change it. With small builders, custom home building or renovation it is easy to change the deck layout a little to make things work better. Something Mike Holmes and other promoters never seem to say is that this is all market driven and most people do not want to pay what it really costs to do the job right.