Thursday, April 9, 2015

Agghh! It's April!

I knew it was a double-edged sword, but I'm really feeling it. Being an architect, I can generate endless designs "for free" and choose the best. If I didn't have this ability, I would have to pay someone who would show me two or three options from which to choose. We'd have a one-hour discussion, ending with a decision on which option to pursue.

Time is money. I'd have to pay the designer, so we would both be incentivized to finish quickly.

As the designer, I want it to be perfect. Therefore, I'm incentivized to stall and delay actual decisions. Everything is tentative, because committing to a particular design ends the game. It almost certainly represents "settling" for something less than perfection.

Money is money. If I did this all the time for other clients, I would have a better handle on what different options cost. As it is, "perfect" is expensive. My "improvements" to the design fall into three categories:

  • More expensive materials--a mediocre design in clear stained wood looks better than painted drywall
  • More complicated building--more corners, more ins and outs and built-ins...that'll make it "better"
  • Wild structure--wouldn't it be cool if the house didn't touch the ground? 

So every redesign seems to pile on more money, one way or another. I notice this, so I start self-limiting, producing designs that are deliberately "cost-effective." My first plans called for adding 1500 square feet and stairs. Now, I've settled on a 600 square foot addition.

This observation is based on working on the design of the window wall at the south end of the Trees Room. First, I know that much window is expensive. With a 16' ceiling, it's about 240 SF of glass, which is at least $14/SF without labor. At 11' 6", it's more like 140 SF.

Then I realize that the structure has a problem. I'm assuming a moment frame with a curtain wall, even if the end result doesn't look like that. The two side walls want to fall in on each other, and the windows won't stop them. Luckily, "X"-bracing wouldn't hurt the view and might look cool. But that's when I realized--I'm paying a structural engineer now, too. I can't just size the "X" bracing myself; the city will want calcs.

I found these structural engineers. It's as good a list as any to start with.


Before I start wondering if the structural engineer can suggest better ways to support the roof--center beam, truss joists. Does this stupid engineer (whom I haven't met) even know about SIPs? Before I spin out of control that way, I start to think about solar radiation. Is this window wall going to be a greenhouse in summer? Of course it is. Will the afternoon sun be blinding? Perhaps. How about louvers all around--flat, horizontal, 12" shelves every 18" or so to shade the windows from summer sun and let in winter sun? Oh, and what about acoustics? This is the media room--what if it's a big, boomy barn with echoey drywall all around because I can't afford anything else?

So, I could hire an architect, but I know how I would treat such a job. Since it's not their project, really, they're not responsible. They can say the acoustics look okay to them, because I can't call them if the acoustics turn out badly.

Calming down, repeating my mantra (insert joke mantra here), I think I need to develop the drawings to the point that I can take an hour of a structural engineer's time. Perhaps I'll try two different engineers and choose one of them to do the calcs. When I feel confident of the structure, I'll draw it up, including structural details, and ask one of the engineers to review, mark-up, and run calcs on it.

At some point during this process, I should pay for an hour of an architect's time to just chat over a set of plans. There are a lot to choose from:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Steps Project

I want to remodel the whole front yard. New hardscape, and so on. But at the moment, my path from the driveway to the house is only barely w...