observations04

Back to the top
Return to contents
Return to index

READING FOR A QUIET EVENING

Every now and then an outstanding book on building comes along. Such was Tracy Kidder's House, which chronicles the birth of a dwelling, reads like a first-rate novel, and still is the best introduction I know to the process of getting from dream to dream house. A few years ago one of the carpenters from House, Jim Locke, has tried his hand. The result, The Apple Corps Guide to the Well-built House, is an excellent introduction to planning and building a house.

Locke is not a restoration contractor, nor does he pretend to be; his book is oriented to new construction. Nevertheless, it offers useful information for historic preservation projects as well as for conventional construction. In a style that makes The Well-builtHouse readable to both building professionals and the rest of the world, it addresses the evaluation of techniques, materials, and products, and dealing productively with contractors and construction crews. The Well-Built House is an enjoyable and well-ordered look at how a house is built, by a knowledgable and helpful builder.

Back to the top
Return to contents
Return to index

A BALANCING ACT

Ultimately, in any construction project, there are two commandingly important variables: Program and budget--what you want to build, and what you can spend to accomplish it. What an owner wants to do, obviously, may vary from the small and simple to the enormous and elaborate. As for the budget, there are costs below which nothing useful can be built, and there are costs above which an owner can not afford to spend.

The critically important aspect of these two variables, however, is that each depends on the other: What you can build depends on what you can spend. How much you must spend depends on the size, complexity, and degree of finish of what you build.

When the program calls for more building than the budget can support, either the program must be reduced, the budget increased, or both. As a practical matter, the program will probably be reduced more often than the budget is increased because of the stern discipline imposed by finances. Most of us can afford to be more flexible in our needs and desires than in the amount of money we spend, leading to compromises with the ideal program. One result is that few building projects go ahead as originally envisioned.

In working with old buildings, the existing structure further complicates this already complex situation by establishing an esthetic or spatial standard for the new work. Consider the common situation in which an owner wants to increase the size of an existing building:

When constructing a minimal enclosure that is obviously an addition to, rather than an extension of an existing building, he can probably accomplish it for a relatively small amount of money. It is also likely that its exterior appearance will not be particularly sensitive to what is already there. To design such a simple box will require minimal time, and almost no investigation of the existing building beyond taking a few basic dimensions. The finished product often will make this fact abundantly clear.

On the other hand, a carefully-designed extension that respects and enhances the existing building and provides more than minimal amenity will cost more, both for construction and for design. Before design can begin, it will be necessary to measure, sketch, and photograph the existing building, and to prepare measured drawings. The design process itself will take more time to arrive at a solution that both meets the owner's needs and respects the existing building. And once the design is settled, the actual construction may well cost more, both because there will be more to construct, and because it will call for more care in its execution.

Whether the results will justify the additional time and cost of extending a building, rather than adding to it, is part of what the wise building owner considers before embarking on a project.

Back to the top
Return to contents
Return to index

DO IT YOURSELF?

Clients often ask me, "Couldn't I save money by acting as my own general contractor?" The answer is, "Maybe, but." You may save money (there's no guarantee), but it will not be a free ride. One of the most important things contractors do is to coordinate the different workmen and subcontractors (trades), so that each arrives to do his work at (almost) exactly the right time, in a wonderfully complex choreography. Miss a beat, delays can cascade down the line, and a one-day delay can mushroom into a weeks-late finished product.

Without previous building experience, you may not be sure which trades will be needed when. Even if you are, getting them to arrive at the job on time may be a challenge; you just won't have the clout of the general contractor working on the other side of town if both of you need, say, the plumber at the same time. After all, the general contractor is a source of repeat business, while you are almost certainly a one-shot proposition.

So, yes, you may save some money, but it's not guaranteed. Your lack of experience may end up costing more than if you had paid a contractor. You will have to spend a lot of time on the project, and your time has value. In more cases than not, the money paid the contractor to manage the job will be well spent.

A good discussion of the pros and cons of "generalling" a project yourself is contained in Home Renovation Associates' book, I'm Not Doing It Myself, the comprehensive guide to managing a home construction or renovation project, published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1987. It's almost certainly out of print, but you should be able to find a copy through EBay or your local second-hand bookstore.

Return to contents
Return to index