If only it was this easy! A student builds a wonderful design from nothing but Popsicle sticks.
Building Popsicle Mansion Time Lapse HD
The interesting part is that he took the same amount of time to build the 1/24 scale model as I am budgeting for my build - 18 months
Should I be nervous?
Showing posts with label Drafting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drafting. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 December 2013
Friday, 29 November 2013
Variance Required!
Well, it is probably time for an update on the project. I know it has been some time since I provided specifics on the project itself. On the whole, things have gone quite well.
The work that Heather and Nathan have been doing at Tacoma Engineers has been first rate, and we are nearing the end of this challenging design. I have been so happy with my selection and waiting until I found the right match for this project. Much of the difficulty lies in my inexperience with structural design and building design in general, and the fact that I am both designing and drawing up my own house plans for the first time. I have taken blueprint reading and design courses in the past, but there was still SO much I did not know. Tacoma has been great at coaxing a more professional looking drawing package out of me (which I will post soon).
I also appreciate the patience shown by Tacoma as I aim for a dwelling with limited thermal bridging. Turns out limiting thermal bridging and structural requirements do not play well with one another and this has been trying for all involved. What has been a pleasant surprise is that my ‘gut-thumb-in-the-air’ engineering has been very close to acceptable. I personally designed most of the floor truss and beam layout and Tacoma has only needed to size the beams that I proposed. There have been a few extra beams required in the design, but nothing significant.
Contrary to the demands of the first engineer I hired in March, I actually do have a predominately 2x4 house structure (my taller gable walls had to be converted to 2x6 as did some interior bearing walls). This was important to reduce cost (a 2x4 is about 60% of the cost of a 2x6), reduce the embodied energy of the dwelling by building in less overall material, and most importantly - would allow me to utilize the salvaged 2x4’s from the house we will tear down. The used studs will not be tall enough for full height wall studs in the new structure (I have taller ceilings – 9ft first floor and 8.5 for the second floor), but they will probably meet 100% of the need for less than stud height lengths used as jacks, cripples, and general blocking. This will significantly reduce my costs and divert a very large volume of materials away from the landfill. The drawbacks with 2x4 framing is that you require 16” O.C. (may have needed some of this even with 2x6 construction based on loads), and a 2x4 stud has a lot less resistance to wind loading and therefore you require a larger volume of king studs around openings. I am currently working with Tacoma to reduce this (possibly with the use of stronger – engineered wood posts).
Drawing up both the architectural as well as structural plans (Thank-you Tacoma for allowing me to do the structural plans and save some additional costs) has been a monumental task I was prepared for on some levels but not fully expecting. Not counting the deign work done over the previous 2-3 years, I have put over a 1000 hours into the design, 3D model and 2D Drawings since July of this year. I have basically been working 15+ hours a day, 7 days a week, for the last three months. Things finally settled down this last weekend when I drafted the final structural drawing for Tacoma and now only need to process drawing mark-ups and revisions.
As we were close to being finished, I contacted the District for my pre-permit review of my plans and documentation. I was assigned an appointment time of 11:00 AM on November 27. Heather at Tacoma stepped up yet again and even came in on Sunday to work through the mark-ups on two of the more significant drawings. I was so grateful! Well the meeting was two days ago, and because I really did not know what to expect, I was both encouraged and disappointed all at once. The first few minutes went well although I could tell that the District staff were not overly impressed with the details missing from some of my architectural drawings.
But then I blurted out that I was not in compliance with the zoning bylaw and would be applying for a zoning variance. You see, I have planned since pretty much last fall’s design iteration, that I would be applying for a variance on the requirement to make the upper floor only 75% or smaller of the size of the lower floor. I was going to ask for permission to make my lower floor smaller than allowed to ensure I had a more compact envelope (limiting exterior wall surface limits your heat loss), to allow me to more easily comply with the new code required seismic braced wall panel rules (and the need for additional internal braced wall bands when you have the setbacks needed for a smaller upper floor), and most importantly, to allow me to design the house around our 4 magnificent 125ft+ mature cedars that hem in the south and west sides of our build lot.
At first the tone was feeling like, that would be too bad and I would be expected to take the trees down to make room for a larger first floor. I was told that the Zoning Variance Board was particularly steadfast against any form of variances at the present time, and that my application would probably be refused. As you can imagine, this was fairly distressing, and due to a family member’s pet emergency the night before, the 4 hours of sleep I had that night did not prepare me well for this enlightenment. One good idea that was raised during that part of the conversation as a possible plan B, was to build a 300 sq. ft. veranda on the back of the house which would bring me into compliance with the first floor size requirement needed to meet the ratio. This will probably be what I will do if my variance request is denied.
Then the real shocker kicked in as we continued to check the plans, my overall roof height was too high! On the surface it looked like both my north and south upper roof ridges were too high. As I had worked a month on these roofs to make them work with the thickness needed for structure and the insulation levels planned, and to ensure enough room for the smallest height windows Cascadia make in an operable lite for the Clerestory, this was very upsetting and for a while I just did not want to accept it. I had met with District staff in March and thought I had a clear understanding of the bylaw rules, but obviously I did not. Now things were looking very grim as to any chance of approval by the Zoning Variance Board. The staff member I was meeting with brought in others into the conversation, including some from the planning department. They discussed possible options that may be available to me. They agreed that as far as my floor ratio violation, my design met the intent of the bylaw (which is to promote interesting – non box architecture) even though it did not meet its technical specifics. I also had the impression they felt the roof infraction was fairly minor in nature.
This below PDF shows in yellow the portion of my roof assembly that is not in compliance with the bylaw. The other hatched lines show the larger massed roof I would be allowed to build if I went to a steeper pitch. Fortunately, when I got back home and measured, only the steeper north roof was not fully in compliance with the bylaw.
I was thoroughly deflated by this point until a suggestion was made to go for a Development Variance instead of a Zoning variance. Development variance decisions are made by the elected Council, and the Councillors have greater leeway to grant exceptions in the light of special site conditions or design goals. The application states "Development variance permits are normally considered where specific site characteristics or other unique circumstances do not permit strict compliance with the existing regulations." This was sounding promising and I got the feeling that the staff felt my chances of success with this process would be pretty good with a comment from the planning staff that they would have no concerns passing the application to Council for their approval. SO, it seemed that I was already through the first gate. Things were looking up.
The final checks focused on the existing shed we have at the back of our property. It is larger than allowed by the zoning bylaw and also a bit to close to two of the property lines. In the spring, I was counselled by staff to confirm this on the plans as an existing accessory building that was not being changed in any way and that it would probably be fine. The staff went away to discuss this and when my reviewer came back, she advised that I should include this in the variance request to 'legitimize' the existence of the building and that if for some reason, I did not go for variance or my overall variance was denied, they would figure out another method to allow it to stay in place. I have maintained it over the years and I was going to use it to build a plane with my neighbour a few years back. I then was going to use it as a very small wood shop but now that I will be building a full sized wood shop into the basement of the new house, I will probably just use this shed as a garden shed to store my law tractor and other yard tools and garden equipment. It used to be heated with a gas boiler, but this was recently decommissioned.
I left the, close to two hour, meeting yesterday feeling a bit beat up but at least optimistic.
I spent yesterday morning updating details on the drawings of concern to the staff and emailed that over to her. I then received the Bylaw Compliance Checklist back from her late afternoon on the same day identifying the 4 items I need to get a variance for. I spent yesterday afternoon and evening drawing up the PDF shown below and drafting a letter I will send to the neighbours, once again asking for their support. All 8 neighbours that are adjacent to the front and back of my property will be sent an official survey by the District and asked to indicate their support or opposition to my requested variances. I have been encouraged to contact them in advance to explain the rationale behind the variance requests and ask for as many letters of support as possible. I will distribute my info letter to them this weekend and will aim at applying for my variance on or before Dec 13 so that I have the best chance of being able to present my case to Council at their February meeting.
I was told that staff could possibly look at starting to process my building permit application in advance of the Council approval on the assumption that it would be approved. I was also told that I could apply for the demolition permit at any time and it was recommended I do this about 4 weeks before I wanted the services disconnected. This was very good news that gives me a good chance of not only being able to stay on schedule, but possibly even being able to start earlier than planned. As we plan to move out March 1, we could have the service cut anytime after that and start the dismantling of the existing structure during March instead of after the planned April 8.
Next few weeks/months will be exciting as I finish off with Tacoma and prepare the full drawing package for submission with my variance application. I will then need to move on to the plumbing, electrical, and most important HVAC design. These are all a separate permit process and therefore a different time requirements. The plumbing will be the first permit application needed right after the building permit (the drains need to go under the footings) and then the electrical application would follow my rough-in construction inspection. Then would come the HVAC. At this point, I do not plan to connect gas to the house which will save us connection fees, permit fees, and monthly utility connection fees. This may change after the HVAC design, but at this point I hope to utilize an air source to water heat pump for both my space and domestic water heating needs.
Well, now you are all caught up.
Wish me well and thanks for reading!
The work that Heather and Nathan have been doing at Tacoma Engineers has been first rate, and we are nearing the end of this challenging design. I have been so happy with my selection and waiting until I found the right match for this project. Much of the difficulty lies in my inexperience with structural design and building design in general, and the fact that I am both designing and drawing up my own house plans for the first time. I have taken blueprint reading and design courses in the past, but there was still SO much I did not know. Tacoma has been great at coaxing a more professional looking drawing package out of me (which I will post soon).
I also appreciate the patience shown by Tacoma as I aim for a dwelling with limited thermal bridging. Turns out limiting thermal bridging and structural requirements do not play well with one another and this has been trying for all involved. What has been a pleasant surprise is that my ‘gut-thumb-in-the-air’ engineering has been very close to acceptable. I personally designed most of the floor truss and beam layout and Tacoma has only needed to size the beams that I proposed. There have been a few extra beams required in the design, but nothing significant.
Contrary to the demands of the first engineer I hired in March, I actually do have a predominately 2x4 house structure (my taller gable walls had to be converted to 2x6 as did some interior bearing walls). This was important to reduce cost (a 2x4 is about 60% of the cost of a 2x6), reduce the embodied energy of the dwelling by building in less overall material, and most importantly - would allow me to utilize the salvaged 2x4’s from the house we will tear down. The used studs will not be tall enough for full height wall studs in the new structure (I have taller ceilings – 9ft first floor and 8.5 for the second floor), but they will probably meet 100% of the need for less than stud height lengths used as jacks, cripples, and general blocking. This will significantly reduce my costs and divert a very large volume of materials away from the landfill. The drawbacks with 2x4 framing is that you require 16” O.C. (may have needed some of this even with 2x6 construction based on loads), and a 2x4 stud has a lot less resistance to wind loading and therefore you require a larger volume of king studs around openings. I am currently working with Tacoma to reduce this (possibly with the use of stronger – engineered wood posts).
Drawing up both the architectural as well as structural plans (Thank-you Tacoma for allowing me to do the structural plans and save some additional costs) has been a monumental task I was prepared for on some levels but not fully expecting. Not counting the deign work done over the previous 2-3 years, I have put over a 1000 hours into the design, 3D model and 2D Drawings since July of this year. I have basically been working 15+ hours a day, 7 days a week, for the last three months. Things finally settled down this last weekend when I drafted the final structural drawing for Tacoma and now only need to process drawing mark-ups and revisions.
As we were close to being finished, I contacted the District for my pre-permit review of my plans and documentation. I was assigned an appointment time of 11:00 AM on November 27. Heather at Tacoma stepped up yet again and even came in on Sunday to work through the mark-ups on two of the more significant drawings. I was so grateful! Well the meeting was two days ago, and because I really did not know what to expect, I was both encouraged and disappointed all at once. The first few minutes went well although I could tell that the District staff were not overly impressed with the details missing from some of my architectural drawings.
But then I blurted out that I was not in compliance with the zoning bylaw and would be applying for a zoning variance. You see, I have planned since pretty much last fall’s design iteration, that I would be applying for a variance on the requirement to make the upper floor only 75% or smaller of the size of the lower floor. I was going to ask for permission to make my lower floor smaller than allowed to ensure I had a more compact envelope (limiting exterior wall surface limits your heat loss), to allow me to more easily comply with the new code required seismic braced wall panel rules (and the need for additional internal braced wall bands when you have the setbacks needed for a smaller upper floor), and most importantly, to allow me to design the house around our 4 magnificent 125ft+ mature cedars that hem in the south and west sides of our build lot.
At first the tone was feeling like, that would be too bad and I would be expected to take the trees down to make room for a larger first floor. I was told that the Zoning Variance Board was particularly steadfast against any form of variances at the present time, and that my application would probably be refused. As you can imagine, this was fairly distressing, and due to a family member’s pet emergency the night before, the 4 hours of sleep I had that night did not prepare me well for this enlightenment. One good idea that was raised during that part of the conversation as a possible plan B, was to build a 300 sq. ft. veranda on the back of the house which would bring me into compliance with the first floor size requirement needed to meet the ratio. This will probably be what I will do if my variance request is denied.
Then the real shocker kicked in as we continued to check the plans, my overall roof height was too high! On the surface it looked like both my north and south upper roof ridges were too high. As I had worked a month on these roofs to make them work with the thickness needed for structure and the insulation levels planned, and to ensure enough room for the smallest height windows Cascadia make in an operable lite for the Clerestory, this was very upsetting and for a while I just did not want to accept it. I had met with District staff in March and thought I had a clear understanding of the bylaw rules, but obviously I did not. Now things were looking very grim as to any chance of approval by the Zoning Variance Board. The staff member I was meeting with brought in others into the conversation, including some from the planning department. They discussed possible options that may be available to me. They agreed that as far as my floor ratio violation, my design met the intent of the bylaw (which is to promote interesting – non box architecture) even though it did not meet its technical specifics. I also had the impression they felt the roof infraction was fairly minor in nature.
This below PDF shows in yellow the portion of my roof assembly that is not in compliance with the bylaw. The other hatched lines show the larger massed roof I would be allowed to build if I went to a steeper pitch. Fortunately, when I got back home and measured, only the steeper north roof was not fully in compliance with the bylaw.
I was thoroughly deflated by this point until a suggestion was made to go for a Development Variance instead of a Zoning variance. Development variance decisions are made by the elected Council, and the Councillors have greater leeway to grant exceptions in the light of special site conditions or design goals. The application states "Development variance permits are normally considered where specific site characteristics or other unique circumstances do not permit strict compliance with the existing regulations." This was sounding promising and I got the feeling that the staff felt my chances of success with this process would be pretty good with a comment from the planning staff that they would have no concerns passing the application to Council for their approval. SO, it seemed that I was already through the first gate. Things were looking up.
The final checks focused on the existing shed we have at the back of our property. It is larger than allowed by the zoning bylaw and also a bit to close to two of the property lines. In the spring, I was counselled by staff to confirm this on the plans as an existing accessory building that was not being changed in any way and that it would probably be fine. The staff went away to discuss this and when my reviewer came back, she advised that I should include this in the variance request to 'legitimize' the existence of the building and that if for some reason, I did not go for variance or my overall variance was denied, they would figure out another method to allow it to stay in place. I have maintained it over the years and I was going to use it to build a plane with my neighbour a few years back. I then was going to use it as a very small wood shop but now that I will be building a full sized wood shop into the basement of the new house, I will probably just use this shed as a garden shed to store my law tractor and other yard tools and garden equipment. It used to be heated with a gas boiler, but this was recently decommissioned.
I left the, close to two hour, meeting yesterday feeling a bit beat up but at least optimistic.
I spent yesterday morning updating details on the drawings of concern to the staff and emailed that over to her. I then received the Bylaw Compliance Checklist back from her late afternoon on the same day identifying the 4 items I need to get a variance for. I spent yesterday afternoon and evening drawing up the PDF shown below and drafting a letter I will send to the neighbours, once again asking for their support. All 8 neighbours that are adjacent to the front and back of my property will be sent an official survey by the District and asked to indicate their support or opposition to my requested variances. I have been encouraged to contact them in advance to explain the rationale behind the variance requests and ask for as many letters of support as possible. I will distribute my info letter to them this weekend and will aim at applying for my variance on or before Dec 13 so that I have the best chance of being able to present my case to Council at their February meeting.
I was told that staff could possibly look at starting to process my building permit application in advance of the Council approval on the assumption that it would be approved. I was also told that I could apply for the demolition permit at any time and it was recommended I do this about 4 weeks before I wanted the services disconnected. This was very good news that gives me a good chance of not only being able to stay on schedule, but possibly even being able to start earlier than planned. As we plan to move out March 1, we could have the service cut anytime after that and start the dismantling of the existing structure during March instead of after the planned April 8.
Next few weeks/months will be exciting as I finish off with Tacoma and prepare the full drawing package for submission with my variance application. I will then need to move on to the plumbing, electrical, and most important HVAC design. These are all a separate permit process and therefore a different time requirements. The plumbing will be the first permit application needed right after the building permit (the drains need to go under the footings) and then the electrical application would follow my rough-in construction inspection. Then would come the HVAC. At this point, I do not plan to connect gas to the house which will save us connection fees, permit fees, and monthly utility connection fees. This may change after the HVAC design, but at this point I hope to utilize an air source to water heat pump for both my space and domestic water heating needs.
Well, now you are all caught up.
Wish me well and thanks for reading!
Thursday, 17 October 2013
We have an engineer!
As regular readers will know (previous discussion on the topic), I have struggled to find the right structural engineer for my project for a very long time now.
The process started last March when I chose someone who had a structural issue with 2x4 framing and wanted to put an 8" concrete core inside an ICF. On the first rear day of activity, he thankfully advised this was not the job for him, something I was in total agreement with. But this left me in a real pickle, as I initially had planned on starting construction this last spring. After frantic calls to other engineers showed that no one would be available on short notice, my wife and I discussed and decided that putting the project off a year made the most sense (I did not want to start any later than May 1 in order to get the roof on before the October rains). And in hindsight, I was no where near ready to start this year anyway and had a lot of technical challenges that still needed to be worked through. So all in all, the delay has been for the best.
Because, I had been 'full tilt' for several months up to the March debacle, I used the decision to delay a year as an excuse to 'take a break'. The problem is that a break becomes far too comfortable and weeks very soon turn into months. The last 'break' I had been on took a year! Fortunately I was a bit more disciplined this time and started the design engine up again in late May. I received a list of ICF friendly engineers through my good buddy Murray Frank, and started contacting each of them to see if they had the time to fit in my project. I was finding that between people that did not do ICF anymore, were totally out of business, did not do residential, were not interested, or just did not have the time, my options were limited.
I settled on fellow recommended by people on my first list, who promised a 2-3 week turnaround when I met in his office, but after 6 weeks, not only had we not started, but he had never returned a call or email. I thought, if we start out this way, how long is it going to take to finish the task and decided to cut my losses before I wasted any more time.
I then contacted some of the people that were previously too busy and some new names I had been given. I was left with 3 or 4 people willing to take on the work, but based on their own terms. This generally meant they wanted to take over complete control of the design and move all structure out of Part 9 of the BC Building Code (A prescriptive path to construction) and into Part 4 (An engineered path for all structure). I just needed assistance on items I could not meet prescriptively like beam sizing and engineered floor and roof trusses, and of course the ICF foundations (and only those because I am a bit higher than the prescriptive code allows for). The all encompassing engineers wanted to do up pages of detail drawings and in some cases even choose the products I was to use. And they wanted to charge me $15K+ for the privileged! (my original engineer from March quoted $2500). This was my design, I had already drawn it up in both 2D AND 3D. I had already drawn up many of the details I wanted to figure out before building to ensure they worked and were buildable. I knew what I wanted to build and knew how to build it.
The problem with Part 4 is also that it was going to cost me a lot more money to build. For instance, the Part 9 prescriptive approach requires very little if any manufactured anchors for braced wall panels. As long as you have the right volume of panels per floor, you can use conventional framing with plywood and everyday nails to build these panels, whereas the Part 4 system often make exclusive use of the Simpson StongTie anchors and rods. These can add thousands to a typical build. I had already designed the dwelling to the Part 9 Seismic requirements and did not need any assistance in this regard.
I DID NOT NEED THIS PREMIUM SERVICE and in fact most of this effort would have just been wasted! I could also tell, that preserving the integrity of my design and my ideas for thermal bridge reduction was going to be difficult with several of the individuals.
So at the end of August I threw a 'Hail Mary' and contacted a name I had received from Durisol (ICF block manufacturer) back in March. I had originally dismissed the name because they worked out of Guelph Ontario and I thought how is this ever going to work?. But I was desperate and so contacted Nathan Proper of Tacoma Engineers and was thrilled in his responses. He advised that he had a BC stamp and that we could arrange any Building Official required inspections with a local engineer at a very reasonable cost.
I thought I had died on gone to heaven, and my neighbour came out to ask why I was running around the front yard hooping and hollering. The news literally brought me a few tears as I was so relieved after the conversations I had had with others over the last 6 months. I had hit the jackpot! There apears to be a dramatic difference in how the design professionals here operate compared to back east (I have often seen this with other construction related items as well). The best part - they would charge $5K for the basic design package!
Nathan and his team have been responsive, approachable, and co-operative with my goals and ideals. They approach the tasks in a straightforward, logical, AND practical matter. They are also sensitive to my budget constraints and have already made suggestions where I can provide input (drawing) instead of utilizing staff in their office. We only started the real work on Tuesday, but I feel we have already made great progress. I came up with a concept for supporting my sun shade assemblies, and a lot of people I am sure would just ignored my suggestions and done their own thing (often at my increased cost). But they ran with it and advised it should work and that they had done something similar previously. I can now be a constructive part of the team instead of a bystander, which is what I had always been looking for.
So, it goes to show, trust your gut. If something does not feel right, it probably isn't and should be fixed or past over. It took a long time, but I KNOW I have found the right person for the project and will be enhanced by their involvement.
And is that not what you are looking for when you are hiring someone to help you build your house?
The process started last March when I chose someone who had a structural issue with 2x4 framing and wanted to put an 8" concrete core inside an ICF. On the first rear day of activity, he thankfully advised this was not the job for him, something I was in total agreement with. But this left me in a real pickle, as I initially had planned on starting construction this last spring. After frantic calls to other engineers showed that no one would be available on short notice, my wife and I discussed and decided that putting the project off a year made the most sense (I did not want to start any later than May 1 in order to get the roof on before the October rains). And in hindsight, I was no where near ready to start this year anyway and had a lot of technical challenges that still needed to be worked through. So all in all, the delay has been for the best.
Because, I had been 'full tilt' for several months up to the March debacle, I used the decision to delay a year as an excuse to 'take a break'. The problem is that a break becomes far too comfortable and weeks very soon turn into months. The last 'break' I had been on took a year! Fortunately I was a bit more disciplined this time and started the design engine up again in late May. I received a list of ICF friendly engineers through my good buddy Murray Frank, and started contacting each of them to see if they had the time to fit in my project. I was finding that between people that did not do ICF anymore, were totally out of business, did not do residential, were not interested, or just did not have the time, my options were limited.
I settled on fellow recommended by people on my first list, who promised a 2-3 week turnaround when I met in his office, but after 6 weeks, not only had we not started, but he had never returned a call or email. I thought, if we start out this way, how long is it going to take to finish the task and decided to cut my losses before I wasted any more time.
I then contacted some of the people that were previously too busy and some new names I had been given. I was left with 3 or 4 people willing to take on the work, but based on their own terms. This generally meant they wanted to take over complete control of the design and move all structure out of Part 9 of the BC Building Code (A prescriptive path to construction) and into Part 4 (An engineered path for all structure). I just needed assistance on items I could not meet prescriptively like beam sizing and engineered floor and roof trusses, and of course the ICF foundations (and only those because I am a bit higher than the prescriptive code allows for). The all encompassing engineers wanted to do up pages of detail drawings and in some cases even choose the products I was to use. And they wanted to charge me $15K+ for the privileged! (my original engineer from March quoted $2500). This was my design, I had already drawn it up in both 2D AND 3D. I had already drawn up many of the details I wanted to figure out before building to ensure they worked and were buildable. I knew what I wanted to build and knew how to build it.
The problem with Part 4 is also that it was going to cost me a lot more money to build. For instance, the Part 9 prescriptive approach requires very little if any manufactured anchors for braced wall panels. As long as you have the right volume of panels per floor, you can use conventional framing with plywood and everyday nails to build these panels, whereas the Part 4 system often make exclusive use of the Simpson StongTie anchors and rods. These can add thousands to a typical build. I had already designed the dwelling to the Part 9 Seismic requirements and did not need any assistance in this regard.
I DID NOT NEED THIS PREMIUM SERVICE and in fact most of this effort would have just been wasted! I could also tell, that preserving the integrity of my design and my ideas for thermal bridge reduction was going to be difficult with several of the individuals.
So at the end of August I threw a 'Hail Mary' and contacted a name I had received from Durisol (ICF block manufacturer) back in March. I had originally dismissed the name because they worked out of Guelph Ontario and I thought how is this ever going to work?. But I was desperate and so contacted Nathan Proper of Tacoma Engineers and was thrilled in his responses. He advised that he had a BC stamp and that we could arrange any Building Official required inspections with a local engineer at a very reasonable cost.
He further advised "We would be happy to be involved
with your house and to help you out by designing the components which need our
design. The approach we normally take
with these items is to design only the specific items which the owner asks us
to --- these are commonly the items which are not covered by Part 9 of the
building code. This is more cost-effective for the owner than checking
every little item."
Nathan and his team have been responsive, approachable, and co-operative with my goals and ideals. They approach the tasks in a straightforward, logical, AND practical matter. They are also sensitive to my budget constraints and have already made suggestions where I can provide input (drawing) instead of utilizing staff in their office. We only started the real work on Tuesday, but I feel we have already made great progress. I came up with a concept for supporting my sun shade assemblies, and a lot of people I am sure would just ignored my suggestions and done their own thing (often at my increased cost). But they ran with it and advised it should work and that they had done something similar previously. I can now be a constructive part of the team instead of a bystander, which is what I had always been looking for.
So, it goes to show, trust your gut. If something does not feel right, it probably isn't and should be fixed or past over. It took a long time, but I KNOW I have found the right person for the project and will be enhanced by their involvement.
And is that not what you are looking for when you are hiring someone to help you build your house?
Monday, 14 October 2013
AutoCad 2D model of a 3 level single family home.
Ever wonder what a completed model of a 2D three level home prepared in AutoCAD 2002 with all 43 layers turned on at once looked like?
Thought so!
Thought so!
 |
| Finished 2D model ready to send to the engineer. Kind of frightening knowing each line had to be created manually. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)