patio covers - freestanding vs. attached

N

notTHEoc

New member
Sometimes I see free standing patio covers (with 4 vertical beams) that are just a few feet or less from the back wall of the house.

Other times, they are attached to the wall itself so there are only 2 vertical beams.

what are the pros / cons? Any reason to prefer one way over the other?
 
Free standing is more expensive.  But if you decide on wood, chose free standing.  If your wooden patio cover is attached to your house, and later want to sell it, it's subject to termite inspection and you will pay more money to fix it than the original cost itself.  From experience.  Good luck.
 
If a free standing wood structure is close enough to your home, wouldn't it still be subject to termite inspection?

My amateur assessment:

1. Attached might be more stable as half is supported by the house
2. Freestanding gives you more flexibility of location and allows you to build covered shade away from your house
3. As raising kids said, freestanding is probably more expensive as you need at least 4 cement footers for stability
4. For attached, I believe you can switch up the material you use because it doesn't require as much support strength (we have an aluminum(?) one that looks just like wood)

I prefer attached but both are fine aesthetically.
 
We had an attached patio cover in one house and free standing in another.

Both ended up with termites, but the one attached to the house was more expensive to have treated. Small amounts of water collected on the top of the piece of wood that butted up to the house and that eventually led to termites getting into the structure of the house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top