As a residential architect specializing in the shingle style, I have decided to try and design an architecturally “A+” 2100 (amended to 2721 sqft) square foot house to make available to the masses for a low cost compared to my one off designs for full service fees. The style will be Neo-New England vernacular design; very simple and boxy to save money, analogous to a traditional cape or colonial, but putting a focus on architectural design and material quality rather than traditional fluff.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Here are my latest updates. Don't be fooled by the hard lines, it is a Schematic Design
It might be interesting to see if GWLTD could put a preliminary projection together on the schematic design being constructed in the northeast at this point as a budget check.
It would take a few typical details and an outline specification but I don't think it would take long to put that info together.
You may be right. The framing seems pretty simple. I would bet that the brackets and metal roof will be the cost drivers. In wood I bet those brackets could be a grand each. We should be able to get the number from Ed K - he did the brackets at Carnegie and Nealon.
Are you thinking red cedar shingles with woven corners? Or is this painted cement board clapboards?
these brackets are from Savoie's mold... http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/3103148137_9e8201ec43.jpg
...I think we might be able to go to them, license the bracket for a fair price, and it could only be sold to people that buy our licensed plans. Still... not cheap... but, what do you think?
I’m sure they would want to talk about the concept but I’m not sure how you can control the process. My gut feeling is that people buying a stock plan will end up with brackets there but unless it is really easy (arch detail is not easy to work with) and inexpensive they will be of someone else’s design.
Would you ever consider expanding what you are providing beyond just a plan? What if it was a company that sells a hybrid building concept of partially site-built stick construction and pre-fabricated semi-custom designed parts? The brackets, moldings and trim could come as a package. You could do the same thing with the interiors – custom trim, built-ins, stairs… All the parts could be negotiated beforehand with vendors, built on-demand and drop shipped to the actual construction site to be installed as if they were stock parts. This way the integrity of the original product design is retained and it differentiates what you are doing in the market.
Way to go brother! That was EXACTLY what I was thinking. People would order the brackets and maybe other items through us. They would then be drop shipped from the manufacturer. we would have total control and it would be obvious when someone stole my plans.
Hell, we could choose to only sell the brackets and the drawings together for protection.
I also thought it might be worth asking some local fiberglass companies for pricing on the mold.
This is looking great, Dave. It seems like there is a golden opportunity at the very center of the plan to respect the diagonal centerline, express the pivoted plan-over-plan concept and maybe play with the golden section influence. I'm thinking of something Charles Moore might have liked. One concept carved by another.
The bumpouts feel unresolved to me. They want to be the rotated plan over plan that Bill suggests in some respects, but they really are adjuncts. I like a lot of the plan moves and external consequences, but I'd like to see the bumpouts be a bit less fussy - ninety degree bays from foundation to soffit.
Where are the mechanicals? If they are in the basement, why not allow the stair tower to come fully down to a foundation? Similarly, why not allow it to rise to the underside of the soffit. That way someone standing on the second floor landing could see out at eye level. The extra cost of the foundation would be offset by less roof form. Could you pull the kitchen in a bit by giving up some of the space at the base of the stair and then allow the same form to be the MBR bay?
I like both of your comments and will study both again. I left them alone for the sake of simplicity to the ends of reduced cost.
In the internal moves I was concerned about deep criticism of material waste due to design of joists for varying lengths due to angles, and a more complex system of bearing walls. I kept reminding myself that the beauty of a New England cape or colonial is that it is so simple to frame that it can built framed so very quickly. I felt I needed to respond to that.
With regards to the bump outs, I originally thought of the two rotated squares, but again, felt I was overcomplicated the roof structure. I compromised on the form as a traditional oriel.
In both cases I thank you for your opinions and will re-challenge my original preconceptions… but, would appreciate your thoughts on my concerns.
I'd say my biggest crit would be that at the outset you said that you would be aiming for something that would look nothing like your own work. Maybe I don't know your work well enough, or I don't have the eye for eclectic traditional styles to discern, but generally I'd say that this looks just like your own work.
I don't think that is bad, just contrary to your statement.
It’s actually the opposite. I originally wondered if I could produce an Andreozzi Architect design house for the masses.
I then wondered if the archetype was going to morph on its own. To this day I am wondering if I should be including moldings and some of my architectural soul, or it should be modernized due to green issues and obligation to reduce budget more and more.
We are still struggling with these issue at the lunch and at the bar every day. ;^) I am not sure that both houses couldn't be designed within the same design.
When I miss-use the word modern, I refer to a newly invented contemporary shingle style that is reformulated with a new modern "firmness"... to the commodity and delight. This is scary for me to even think of frankly.
My extended comment originally posted at the CORA Forum: http://coragroups.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=736&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
Hey David, looking at your floor plan I am curious what the room sizes are like. 2100 sqft is not giant, yet 3 bedrooms in that area is pretty generous. My own house is 1600 sqft and is 4 bedrooms, given they are not large 12x13, and 10x13. My house plans include several designs of 3 bedrooms that come in around 2000sqft and bedrooms in those houses are around 14x14, or 11x16. It seems with the study you really have the bones of a 4 bedroom house, and the bedroom sizes seem smaller due to this.
I'm just curious what your design is coming in at, without giving away the dimensions of the house. Looking at the second floor plan I feel like there is a lot of space given over to circulation spaces although its broken up into several small interstitial spaces. I can't help feeling that some of the esoteric planning decisions which give the house a lot of character may also be a turn off to many mainstream customers. For example the imbalance between small closet spaces in the secondary bedrooms and giant dressing room in the master, the lack of a bath, isolation of the study to the master suite. The jack and jill bathrooms as people are calling them - I find them a strange preference and I am not sure why they have become popular. I've had requests for them, usually in larger 5 bedroom houses where there was still another hall bathroom. I find this an unusual choice in a 3 bedroom house, especially when it is forcing a condition such as the toilet closet to accommodate a shared use, where that would usually be more typical in a master bath where there is usually more space to make a toilet closet. Here the master bath is smaller and does not have that feature. Personally I think that is fine, but its just odd to me seeing it not present in the master bath it makes an appearance in the other bathroom..?
I'm betraying a lot of my own bias here, but its worthwhile for discussion. I think CORA wants to see more good design come to commodity housing types. We'll all have a different take on what that means. When I work on a custom design there are often very esoteric solutions that emerge out of the process of working with an owner. A speculative design has none of this input, and for me it rarely has that kind of personalized solution. I can't really speak to what's behind the decisions in your plan, but I can't help but feel it somewhat forced, as if the plan reflects very personal preferences which I know are absent, rather than generic ones. I don't mean to use the term "generic" in a negative way. How do you make a good design where you don't have the complexity of a real client to support your design decisions? How does the generic become good?
This is a difficult point I am trying to make. Our value as good designers in a practice of custom designs lies in our ability to translate sometimes esoteric preferences into working designs. However I strongly believe that a speculative design is a totally different nut to crack. Overlaying complexities that feel like they have emerged out of a custom design process on a speculative design is empty, in a really bad way. Good design in this new speculative context lies elsewhere. This is the big challenge for us to find.
Hey David, for the most part, I think the design is coming along quite well. However, I will offer some comments in the hopes of food for thought (although as with all comments, they are biased towards my personal preferences, of course!)
1) Probably the area that feels most unresolved is the exact center of the 1st floor at the stair hall. With this being such a strongly geometric house, this areas feels odd with the converging angles. One though might be to enter into a small rotunda, with openings to the kitchen or Family Room, although that may prove as problematic. Just a thought.
2) The Master Bath feels tiny to me, although I know that houses of the north typically have a much more modest master bath in relation to homes from the south. The hall seems to be taking up a lot of space, and the angled windows seem to be causing less than efficient use of the space that you do have. Personally, I'd rather see the Master closet get smaller and the bath more generous. You were going to have more than one sink in there, aren't you?
3) I LOVE the exterior. It's very stylized, but i have to agree with Greg, the point about "doing something that doesn't look like your work.." yeah, not really meeting this "goal" (although I'm really not sure why you had that as one in the first place.) Despite the fact that I love it, I am wondering how well public opinion of a design such as this will go over- (I'm not saying you should change it, just not sure how "mainstream" a house such as this would actually be.)
.jpg)
First Floor Plan.jpg)
Second Floor Plan.jpg)
Front Elevation.jpg)
Side Elevation.jpg)
Side Elevation.jpg)
Rear Elevation
17 comments:
It might be interesting to see if GWLTD could put a preliminary projection together on the schematic design being constructed in the northeast at this point as a budget check.
It would take a few typical details and an outline specification but I don't think it would take long to put that info together.
That is a very good idea. I am thinking I might actually be under $225.
Dave
You may be right. The framing seems pretty simple. I would bet that the brackets and metal roof will be the cost drivers. In wood I bet those brackets could be a grand each. We should be able to get the number from Ed K - he did the brackets at Carnegie and Nealon.
Are you thinking red cedar shingles with woven corners? Or is this painted cement board clapboards?
these brackets are from Savoie's mold... http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/3103148137_9e8201ec43.jpg
...I think we might be able to go to them, license the bracket for a fair price, and it could only be sold to people that buy our licensed plans. Still... not cheap... but, what do you think?
I’m sure they would want to talk about the concept but I’m not sure how you can control the process. My gut feeling is that people buying a stock plan will end up with brackets there but unless it is really easy (arch detail is not easy to work with) and inexpensive they will be of someone else’s design.
Would you ever consider expanding what you are providing beyond just a plan? What if it was a company that sells a hybrid building concept of partially site-built stick construction and pre-fabricated semi-custom designed parts? The brackets, moldings and trim could come as a package. You could do the same thing with the interiors – custom trim, built-ins, stairs… All the parts could be negotiated beforehand with vendors, built on-demand and drop shipped to the actual construction site to be installed as if they were stock parts. This way the integrity of the original product design is retained and it differentiates what you are doing in the market.
Way to go brother! That was EXACTLY what I was thinking. People would order the brackets and maybe other items through us. They would then be drop shipped from the manufacturer. we would have total control and it would be obvious when someone stole my plans.
Hell, we could choose to only sell the brackets and the drawings together for protection.
I also thought it might be worth asking some local fiberglass companies for pricing on the mold.
This is looking great, Dave. It seems like there is a golden opportunity at the very center of the plan to respect the diagonal centerline, express the pivoted plan-over-plan concept and maybe play with the golden section influence. I'm thinking of something Charles Moore might have liked. One concept carved by another.
Bill
The bumpouts feel unresolved to me. They want to be the rotated plan over plan that Bill suggests in some respects, but they really are adjuncts. I like a lot of the plan moves and external consequences, but I'd like to see the bumpouts be a bit less fussy - ninety degree bays from foundation to soffit.
Where are the mechanicals? If they are in the basement, why not allow the stair tower to come fully down to a foundation? Similarly, why not allow it to rise to the underside of the soffit. That way someone standing on the second floor landing could see out at eye level. The extra cost of the foundation would be offset by less roof form. Could you pull the kitchen in a bit by giving up some of the space at the base of the stair and then allow the same form to be the MBR bay?
Hi Bill & Tom.
I like both of your comments and will study both again. I left them alone for the sake of simplicity to the ends of reduced cost.
In the internal moves I was concerned about deep criticism of material waste due to design of joists for varying lengths due to angles, and a more complex system of bearing walls. I kept reminding myself that the beauty of a New England cape or colonial is that it is so simple to frame that it can built framed so very quickly. I felt I needed to respond to that.
With regards to the bump outs, I originally thought of the two rotated squares, but again, felt I was overcomplicated the roof structure. I compromised on the form as a traditional oriel.
In both cases I thank you for your opinions and will re-challenge my original preconceptions… but, would appreciate your thoughts on my concerns.
Fondly,
Dave
Mechanicals could be in the tremendous attic, no?
I'd say my biggest crit would be that at the outset you said that you would be aiming for something that would look nothing like your own work. Maybe I don't know your work well enough, or I don't have the eye for eclectic traditional styles to discern, but generally I'd say that this looks just like your own work.
I don't think that is bad, just contrary to your statement.
HI Greg,
It’s actually the opposite. I originally wondered if I could produce an Andreozzi Architect design house for the masses.
I then wondered if the archetype was going to morph on its own. To this day I am wondering if I should be including moldings and some of my architectural soul, or it should be modernized due to green issues and obligation to reduce budget more and more.
We are still struggling with these issue at the lunch and at the bar every day. ;^) I am not sure that both houses couldn't be designed within the same design.
Dave
I still don’t understand why modern associates with “green” and inexpensive while traditional means expensive and wastefully exploitive.
Trim and detail aside David it still has the mannerist characteristics that remind me of the rest of your work.
When I miss-use the word modern, I refer to a newly invented contemporary shingle style that is reformulated with a new modern "firmness"... to the commodity and delight. This is scary for me to even think of frankly.
I wasn't thinking it was going to look modern!
My extended comment originally posted at the CORA Forum: http://coragroups.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=736&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
Hey David, looking at your floor plan I am curious what the room sizes are like. 2100 sqft is not giant, yet 3 bedrooms in that area is pretty generous. My own house is 1600 sqft and is 4 bedrooms, given they are not large 12x13, and 10x13. My house plans include several designs of 3 bedrooms that come in around 2000sqft and bedrooms in those houses are around 14x14, or 11x16. It seems with the study you really have the bones of a 4 bedroom house, and the bedroom sizes seem smaller due to this.
I'm just curious what your design is coming in at, without giving away the dimensions of the house. Looking at the second floor plan I feel like there is a lot of space given over to circulation spaces although its broken up into several small interstitial spaces. I can't help feeling that some of the esoteric planning decisions which give the house a lot of character may also be a turn off to many mainstream customers. For example the imbalance between small closet spaces in the secondary bedrooms and giant dressing room in the master, the lack of a bath, isolation of the study to the master suite. The jack and jill bathrooms as people are calling them - I find them a strange preference and I am not sure why they have become popular. I've had requests for them, usually in larger 5 bedroom houses where there was still another hall bathroom. I find this an unusual choice in a 3 bedroom house, especially when it is forcing a condition such as the toilet closet to accommodate a shared use, where that would usually be more typical in a master bath where there is usually more space to make a toilet closet. Here the master bath is smaller and does not have that feature. Personally I think that is fine, but its just odd to me seeing it not present in the master bath it makes an appearance in the other bathroom..?
I'm betraying a lot of my own bias here, but its worthwhile for discussion. I think CORA wants to see more good design come to commodity housing types. We'll all have a different take on what that means. When I work on a custom design there are often very esoteric solutions that emerge out of the process of working with an owner. A speculative design has none of this input, and for me it rarely has that kind of personalized solution. I can't really speak to what's behind the decisions in your plan, but I can't help but feel it somewhat forced, as if the plan reflects very personal preferences which I know are absent, rather than generic ones. I don't mean to use the term "generic" in a negative way. How do you make a good design where you don't have the complexity of a real client to support your design decisions? How does the generic become good?
This is a difficult point I am trying to make. Our value as good designers in a practice of custom designs lies in our ability to translate sometimes esoteric preferences into working designs. However I strongly believe that a speculative design is a totally different nut to crack. Overlaying complexities that feel like they have emerged out of a custom design process on a speculative design is empty, in a really bad way. Good design in this new speculative context lies elsewhere. This is the big challenge for us to find.
Hey David, for the most part, I think the design is coming along quite well. However, I will offer some comments in the hopes of food for thought (although as with all comments, they are biased towards my personal preferences, of course!)
1) Probably the area that feels most unresolved is the exact center of the 1st floor at the stair hall. With this being such a strongly geometric house, this areas feels odd with the converging angles. One though might be to enter into a small rotunda, with openings to the kitchen or Family Room, although that may prove as problematic. Just a thought.
2) The Master Bath feels tiny to me, although I know that houses of the north typically have a much more modest master bath in relation to homes from the south. The hall seems to be taking up a lot of space, and the angled windows seem to be causing less than efficient use of the space that you do have. Personally, I'd rather see the Master closet get smaller and the bath more generous. You were going to have more than one sink in there, aren't you?
3) I LOVE the exterior. It's very stylized, but i have to agree with Greg, the point about "doing something that doesn't look like your work.." yeah, not really meeting this "goal" (although I'm really not sure why you had that as one in the first place.)
Despite the fact that I love it, I am wondering how well public opinion of a design such as this will go over- (I'm not saying you should change it, just not sure how "mainstream" a house such as this would actually be.)
Post a Comment