A couple in Kirkendall had already confirmed their kitchen-dining wall was load bearing - what they didn't know yet was which beam would carry the load once it came out. This is a walkthrough of how our engineer chose steel over LVL for this specific opening, and what that decision changed about the installation.
The Problem
The homeowners wanted a wide, uninterrupted opening between a narrow galley kitchen and the dining room in their character Kirkendall two-storey - roughly 15 feet of wall, wider than a typical residential opening. They also weren't willing to lose any of their existing 9-foot ceiling height, which is unusually tall for the neighbourhood's early-1900s building stock and something they specifically wanted preserved.
The tension: a 15-foot span needs real beam depth to carry the load safely - and 9-foot ceilings leave very little room to spare before a beam starts eating into headroom.
The Structural Assessment
Our engineer's load calculation for the full 15-foot span, factoring in the roof and second-floor loads carried by this wall, showed that an LVL beam sized to handle that span safely would need roughly 11 inches of depth - enough to drop the finished ceiling by nearly a foot in the kitchen. That wasn't acceptable to the homeowners, and it didn't need to be: the same load, carried by an engineered steel W-section, fit into roughly 7 inches of depth, keeping the ceiling essentially where it started.
Why LVL Was Ruled Out
Not because it couldn't carry the load - because carrying it at this span meant a beam depth the homeowners weren't willing to give up from their ceiling height.
Why Steel Won
A steel W-section carried the identical calculated load in roughly a third less depth, which was the entire deciding factor once both options were sized against the same numbers.
Why Kirkendall's Housing Stock Made This Trickier
Kirkendall is one of Hamilton's older, more architecturally distinct neighbourhoods, and homes here tend to come with taller-than-average ceilings and heavier original framing than the city's postwar subdivisions. That combination cuts both ways on a project like this: the extra ceiling height gave the homeowners room to negotiate on beam depth in theory, but the home's original brick veneer and continuous foundation wall beneath the load bearing partition meant the point loads at each new post location were higher than a typical stick-framed home of the same footprint. Our engineer's site visit paid particular attention to how the existing foundation was built up under that wall before finalizing the footing design - a step that matters more in a neighbourhood like Kirkendall than it would in a newer subdivision with more standardized framing.
The Work
Temporary support walls went in on both sides of the opening before any demolition started. The wall came out in sections, and because the calculated point loads exceeded what the existing footings were sized for, new reinforced footings were poured at each post location before the beam itself went in. A mechanical lift set the steel beam into place - it's too heavy to hand-carry safely at this length - and it was welded and bolted to posts bearing on the new footings. The City of Hamilton framing inspection confirmed the beam, posts, and footings matched the engineer-stamped drawings before any drywall closed the opening back up.
Access was its own challenge on this particular property. Kirkendall's narrow lots and mature street trees meant the mechanical lift couldn't approach from the front of the home, so the beam had to be brought in through the side yard and maneuvered into position from what was originally a service entrance. That added roughly half a day to the installation schedule but didn't change the underlying engineering - it's the kind of site-specific logistics question that gets worked out during scheduling, not something that affects the beam design itself.
What This Project Shows Other Hamilton Homeowners
The lesson here isn't "steel is better" - it's that the right beam only gets identified once span, load, and ceiling depth are actually calculated together, not estimated by eye. A homeowner comparing quotes based on beam material alone, without a matching load calculation behind each one, is comparing numbers that don't actually describe the same solution. This project also illustrates why older Hamilton neighbourhoods sometimes need more assessment time than a newer subdivision would: original foundation and framing details vary house to house in a way that standardized postwar construction doesn't, and that variability is exactly what a proper structural assessment is built to catch before it becomes a mid-project surprise.
It's also worth noting what didn't change because of the beam decision. The permit process, the framing inspection, and the overall project sequencing were identical to what an LVL project would have followed - steel didn't add regulatory complexity, only material cost and a mechanical lift to the installation day. Homeowners sometimes assume a steel beam means a fundamentally more complicated renovation; on this project, and on most others where steel is the right call, the added complexity is narrower than that - it's specific to installation logistics, not to the permitting or inspection process itself.
The homeowners have since told us the extra week and a half the side-yard access added to scheduling was a small trade-off against getting exactly the open-concept space they wanted without sacrificing any ceiling height - and that the written, fixed-price proposal meant the final invoice matched what they'd budgeted for months earlier, with no mid-project change orders. That predictability is usually what homeowners value most once a project like this is behind them, more than the specific beam material that made it possible.
Timeline From First Call to Finished Opening
The homeowners' first call came in early spring, and the free structural assessment happened within the week - that visit is where the load calculation, footing check, and beam sizing all got confirmed together. Engineer-stamped drawings went to the City of Hamilton for permit review about ten days later, and approval came back in just under four weeks, on the faster end of the typical range since the drawings were complete and unambiguous on the first submission. Once the permit was in hand, the physical work - temporary shoring, footing pours, beam installation, and framing inspection - took four working days from first cut to signed-off inspection, with the side-yard access issue adding half a day beyond what a more accessible lot would have needed. Drywall and finishing wrapped up the following week, putting the whole project at roughly six weeks from first call to a fully finished, open kitchen-dining space.
The Result
- A full 15-foot open kitchen-dining span with the original 9-foot ceiling height fully preserved
- Steel beam and post system engineered, permitted, and inspected - fully code-compliant and insurable
- New reinforced footings poured to handle the higher point loads at each post
- Framing inspection passed on first attempt, no rework required
This project is a clean example of why beam type isn't a preference - it's math. The homeowners' non-negotiable ceiling height, combined with a wider-than-typical span, made steel the only beam that actually solved the problem. For the full comparison of when steel makes sense versus LVL, see our steel vs LVL beam guide, for the service details and process on a project like this, visit our load bearing wall removal service page, and if you're ready to get your own home assessed, our free beam estimate guide covers what that visit includes.
Frequently Asked Questions
The opening spanned wider than what an LVL beam could carry within the available ceiling depth without dropping the finished ceiling noticeably. A steel W-section carried the same load in a shallower profile, keeping the homeowners' 9-foot ceilings intact.
Temporary support columns held the structure while the wall came out, then the steel beam was set into the opening with a mechanical lift and secured to posts at each end bearing on reinforced footings - sequenced to keep the rest of the home livable throughout.
Yes. The engineer's load calculation showed the existing footings weren't sized for the new point loads at each post location, so reinforced footings were poured before the beam went in - a step confirmed during the structural assessment, not discovered mid-project.