the subject premises; that a structure does not suddenly get defective without an outside
source like water intrusion or someone excavating next door; that the construction
adjacent to the subject premises occurred 80 years ago; that loads on floor joists today are
not higher than in 1850 in residences; that the pattern of damage to the coating on the
brick is consistent with long term water exposure; that bulging is the result of
weathering; that he did not know if bulging was caused by something exclusively
post-dating 2009; that the current use of the subject premises as an SRO does not
overload the joists; that the effect of a fire on the integrity of a joist depends on the extent
that the joist is burned, as when wood burns it chars and insulates it at first; that wood
joists are subject to [*14]destruction from
microorganisms and insect infestation; that rot spreads quickly if conditions are present;
that the floor would get noticeably spongy if that was going on; that, when wood is cut in
a sawmill it still has water in it; that wood dries out in service over ten or fifteen years
and shrinks in that time; that he did not know about a buckled wall in a cellar; that he
agrees that there was severe water damage and deteriorating stucco and a deteriorating
roofing membrane; that his observations about floors in the subject premises are at odds
with the Vacate Order; that he did not see a buckled wall in 221 referenced in the Vacate
Order; that Respondents' expert's reference to deterioration of wood-to-wood
connections is not accurate; that Respondents' expert mischaracterized plaster failures as
structural problems; that very little shoring is required; that, since work would be done
from top of building down, windows would have to be removed; and that he did not