Foundation decisions, grounded in evidence
A source-led guide to repair costs, methods, and the conditions that make New England homes different.
Three research desks
The first Census-backed baseline is published. Cost findings remain withheld until the quote sample meets the stated threshold.
Flagship data product
Cost index
A planned regional dataset built from verified quotes and documented scope, not copied national averages.
Dated source ranges, quote inputs, and state-by-state context. No synthetic averages and no cost index before the sample is strong enough.
Clear comparisons of piers, wall systems, crack injection, structural support, and concrete repair without pretending one method fits every house.
Research on older foundations, freeze and thaw cycles, fieldstone, settlement, permits, and when an engineer belongs in the decision.
Published library
State files explain what the housing data can and cannot establish. Method guides show which facts a repair proposal still needs.
The full 2024 ACS distribution, reported uncertainty, and a property-level evidence checklist.
Open the guide →State researchState housing-age evidence without turning old housing stock into a repair diagnosis.
Open the guide →State researchEvery Census period, margin of error, calculation note, and limit in one research file.
Open the guide →Method comparisonCompare installation, reaction, load-path questions, and field records, with a source-labelled 603 Basement Solutions application note.
Open the guide →Method comparisonCompare structural bonding and waterstopping by crack condition, movement, moisture, preparation, and repair objective.
Open the guide →Method referenceTreat underpinning as a load-transfer objective and keep temporary support, permanent design, installation records, and lift goals visible.
Open the guide →Method referenceTrace a basement support from beam to footing and distinguish an identified permanent system from an unknown post.
Open the guide →Method referenceReview damage limits, temporary support, material, connections, moisture correction, load transfer, and closeout records.
Open the guide →Regional methodSeparate compatible repointing, water management, structural stabilization, and rebuilding in one written scope.
Open the guide →Method comparisonA condition-led framework for settled slabs, damaged concrete, underlying causes, and scope review, with a source-labelled 603 Basement Solutions application note.
Open the guide →Problem referenceTrace support loss, drainage, slab condition, and fixed constraints before treating a low slab as a method decision.
Open the guide →Problem referenceMap the wall assembly, movement, load path, drainage, and repair goal before treating a visible bow as a system choice.
Open the guide →Problem referenceMap elevations, distress, support, soil, water, and change over time before treating a settling foundation as a pier decision.
Open the guide →Problem referenceDocument material, geometry, displacement, change, water, and companion movement before treating a visible crack as a repair specification.
Open the guide →Problem referenceTrace a low, sloped, or springy floor through its framing, support, foundation, and moisture conditions before selecting a repair.
Open the guide →Problem referenceSeparate mortar loss, water, coatings, and wall movement before choosing repointing, stabilization, or rebuilding.
Open the guide →Problem referenceMap material loss, load path, bearing, movement, and moisture before choosing a wood or foundation repair.
Open the guide →Decision frameworkTrace the water path and load path separately, then document where drainage, material deterioration, and movement overlap.
Open the guide →Regional problemTest the winter-movement explanation against soil, water, freezing conditions, direction, and change through thaw.
Open the guide →Method comparisonCompare interior load paths, exterior anchor access, connection details, and the intended stabilization outcome.
Open the guide →Regulation referenceThe current RSA 155-A framework, local permit route, and records to gather before repair.
Open the guide →Regulation referenceThe 10th edition of 780 CMR, local building-office check, and structural scope questions.
Open the guide →Regulation referenceMUBEC compliance, the municipal enforcement threshold, and the owner’s remaining checks.
Open the guide →Regional researchA field guide to stone, brick, concrete, block, and the mixed assemblies found after alterations.
Open the guide →Regional researchSeparate frost heave, concrete freeze-thaw damage, and thaw weakening before choosing a response.
Open the guide →Decision tools
The tools keep missing evidence visible. They do not diagnose a foundation, estimate a fair price, or rank contractors.
Line up evidence, scope, quantity, engineering, permits, exclusions, warranty, and the written total.
Open the comparator →02Move from what you can see to the evidence and professional question without pretending to diagnose the property.
Use the matrix →03Separate immediate safety conditions from structural evaluation, design, permit, and licensing questions.
Run the checklist →The research standard
We are building a reference, not a disguised contractor list. That changes what gets published and what gets left out.
Every factual claim carries a named source and review date.
Unknowns stay unknown instead of becoming confident-sounding advice.
Cost, method, and regulation pages remain separate from contractor rankings.
A repair recommendation starts with the observed problem, not a product pitch.
Publication standard
Sources, dates and limitations travel with every finding.No rankings / No lead routing / No unsourced cost claims