We are currently having a project done in our backyard to: (1) fill an in-ground pool and (2) build a "sport court" (with a large concrete pad and some tiles) over top.
The pool demolition is underway, but we're having our doubts about the contractors' approach.
As you can see, the pool has been emptied and the deck has been removed. What remains is the aluminum walls that are sunk into the concrete base.
My general understanding of proper pool removal is that the walls should be removed, at least a couple of feet below the surface. Mainly so they don't stick up anywhere. Also, that the concrete based should be broken up. The contractor, having drilled a few small holes in the bottom of the concrete, is planning on:
- Leaving the walls, as is, and filling the pool with dirt (compacted)
- Levelling out the dirt to be level with or just above where the pool walls come up
- Placing the 5" concrete pad (roughly 30'x25') on top of that
He claims he has done it this way before and that the pool wall is actually a structural benefit (used the term "rebar"). This doesn't feel right to me, and I thought that rebar meant steel that is embedded in the concrete. My worry is that the pad ends up resting on the aluminum wall with the dirt underneath shifting away.
He also has drilled a few small holes (you can see some) in the pool bottom for drainage, but again, I thought you're supposed to break it up more; it doesn't seem like it would drain well to me.
This contractor is an experienced concrete contractor and has done large jobs around our municipality, so I hope I'm wrong on this one, but would love a second opinion: is this approach alright for something we want to last a long time?