I would pause, get a structural engineer involved, and change this. This is a terrible design decision as is and not worth it.

@WestCoast Hopeful

Thank you for your concern! The beam and posts were actually designed and approved by a licensed structural engineer before installation. The 6ft clearance is the result of the existing floor joist depth and the beam size required for the load unfortunately it can't be raised without major structural changes to the floor system above.

I'm happy with the open concept result and now focused on the best way to finish it cosmetically. Would love any suggestions on wrapping or finishing options that work well with low-clearance beams!

Oh I am sure an engineer was involved but why not get them back in and see if you can do better. We opened up a kitchen and needed a beam and initially something like what you did was suggested by the engineer and then he and my husband worked on other ways to redistribute the load so that it was flush with ceiling and didn’t created an eye sore.

If you are happy with this so be it. Just now is the time to make a change if you wanted one. Otherwise I would drywall over this and move on. I would not want to draw attention to it jn anyway

Have you considered an I beam instead of this laminated beam?

Need minimum of 6’6 “ to meet IBC. Check your local code.

Caution tape and a 'Low Clearance' sign.

I would check to make sure the 6'2" meets local code before proceeding! If not, now would be the time to change it.

yes. definitely check local codes. if everything you’ve done is up to code, minimize the beam by plastering n painting same color as ceiling. posts plaster n paint same color as walls to deflect attention

Won't tall people brain themselves on this?

Where I live in Ontario Canada, the building code is:

• Beams/Ducts/Bulkheads: Minimum 1.95m (6'5") clearance from the finished floor to the bottom of the beam.

All that money spent when a steel IBeam would have given you more height. Sorry but bad design. OR Yes it would have been a lot of work to recess it into the floor but that would have been better then this. As far as finishing, paint it I guess. The saying "Do it right the first time" is appropriate here.

even a structural engineer should be familiar enough with building codes to know whether or not a been of that height will comply. Would definitely check on the minimum clearance with your local building official and if it doesn't meet code would present that to your structural engineer and ask him to fix it.

Not happenning to code where I live my son is 6'5" I live in Canada the code has a bit of flexibility in basements only

Looks like the flooring has not yet has not yet been installed under the beam, which will make this space even lower.

This must be frustrating for you, Business_Name_Placeholder (you might want to replace that with a name or a unique pseudonym.) We do understand that you're "looking for finishing/cosmetic advice only." But everyone here is rightfully concerned about the distance from the top surface of your floor to the bottom surface of your beam. It looks distinctly dangerous to anyone much above six feet in height—a hospital trip and possibly a lawsuit waiting to happen. And if it's not up to code, as seems to be the case, it's another kind of liability as well. Please reconsider your stance on this—for your sake!

I have relatively low ceilings and a similar beam, so I get it, but 6’2” is wayyy too low. I would do anything possible to change this. If you can’t do the changes to the floor above, and can’t get an i-beam instead, then add back a partial wall or support columns to reduce the size of the beam.

Otherwise, you will need to warn anyone visiting your house who is 6 foot tall and taller, and put something high-visibility on it so they hopefully don’t hit their heads. Your homeowners insurance may take issue with this known hazard.

Does anyone else think this is the contractor and not the homeowner posting this question?

Oh, I dunno, partim. Could be, but I've noticed that newcomers to Houzz sometimes don't realize they've selected the Pro designation.

At least "Business_Name_Placeholder" is easier to read than "HU-[jumbleofnumbers]."

Either way, I'm guessing the contractor went with the less expensive lam beam vs I-beam. Bad decision.

We also had a wall removed in our reno, and the contractor wanted to use lam beam. We insisted on I-beam, which they were then able to recess into the ceiling. We paid more for this option but well worth it.

UPDATE - I wrote wrong height its 6ft 8inch. Inspection done.

Pay the money to recess it into the attic. I don't care if it's 8" higher. It's terrible looking and terible funcitoning.

Well, that’s a relief! Still not ideal, but as long as Shaq isn’t a regular visitor, you should be okay.

This is not a catastrophe. I'm sure budget was a consideration in deciding on a laminated beam versus an I beam. It's no different than a cased opening you'd see in many older homes. I would just drywall everything and paint it out in the wall color you're using for the space. Adding wood will make it feel heavier than need be. You could add trim around it to make it seem intentional. It gives a nice visual separation between the rooms.

It's not a "beam" in the decorative sense. It's essentially HEADER. Drywall, and try to ignore, or spend the money to get rid of it. You don't call attention to header.: )

Thanks for the update and glad to see the support BEAM is the same height as a doorway at 6ft8". Drywall and trim like any other arched opening.

In my area a large number of doorways in newer (2000+) built homes are 8 ft tall, so a beam at 6'8" would not be a positive.

Is what it is at this point. Drywall and paint it the color of the ceiling. You want it to blend not draw attention.

^^ Yes, we know it is a BEAM, : ) . We make doors and windows taller to avoid a ton of HEADER, It's an unfortunately wide and unattractive opening, that if once was windows or two sets of french doors,,,,,,, would have header above. lol. Jeesh.

firsttime_homeowner, I really like katinparadise's image. It shows how nice this can look, now that we're no longer concerned with code and concussions. The doors on the adjoining wall seem to have been reversed in the picture, but the general idea of trimming the beam/header to match doorways looks good to me.

That is the proper way to deal with this beam--wall board, paint trim out like doors or not. It depends on the rest of the home. Are all your openings trimmed out? You could just cover will wall board, mud it, paint it, DONE. It's sooo long putting trim on it might look odd.

Katinparadise has the correct solution. Don’t treat it as a beam but just as an opening between rooms. Drywall and trim as the rest of the house.

"I would pause, get a structural engineer involved, and change this. This is a terrible design decision as is and not worth it."

Apparently a structural engineer was involved. Engineers do math, not esthetics. Never conflate the two, please.

Would a flush mount beam have been possible? Maybe, depending on what's upstairs and mechanical layouts. Certainly more work and expense, but that ship has sailed.

A good structural engineer can do math and work with the homeowner to find an aesthetic solution . Extremely grateful that those we have worked with collaborated with us to ensure both the structural safety and aesthetics were considered.

Don't want to rock the boat at this point, but there might be some things to consider.

A structural engineer is only directed to do a certain thing (size the beam, footings). You give them the span you want, and they are not concerned with anything beyond that unless told. If you want it flush, you have to direct as that will change the size and detailing. If you want posts hidden, or certain finishes, you have to give that information.

So at this point you have a glulam beam that is going to stay. That is typically chosen over a LVL/Microlam for two reasons: a stain finish because you want it exposed; and larger loads. However, with larger loads a PSL is usually chosen if covered. So the cost savings for a glulam, if any, makes me wonder if staining was originally on the table.

Then, it seems that this design is led by you or your contractor. It appears from the picture the beam has opened up the Living Room to part of a hallway. That may be the reason for such a long span requiring such a big beam. But in terms of finishing, as someone else mentioned, casing the beam like a doorway opening may look odd at such a long length, and it appears there is no return wall on the end (the column looks flush in wall). Or with that, maybe a portion of a "faux" wall should be put back under the beam if the space is odd because it is open to the hall. In addition, if no other open doorways in the house are cased, then this would stand out.

So with little info, finishing advice is just general opinions for any situation, not specifically yours.

OK 6'8" - A standard door is 80" high so everyone can relax.

Is there a better way to have had this done? I believe so but it's done and that is between the homeowner and her engineer and contractor.

I think the size and location of it makes it too big for it to be wrapped with stained wood to look like a beam unless your home is a cabin of some sort. I am all for wood beams, but you would need to add more wood around the rooms to tie it in .

Just wrap it in sheetrock and paint it white . It will blend away nicely.