Jay_on_Cape

When I have to change the depth of a floor system I've found the easiest way is to change the framing defaults to the new depth. Everything under the *0* is not affected (basement). I then use the *all off* layer so nothing is showing. I then turn the roofs on and select every roof that is above the 2nd floor subfloor. I raise them all at once the amount of depth I increase for the 2nd floor system only.

Done!! No selecting each and every room or rebuilding roofs that you manually built or altered.

If it's a flat metal cap I just use a roof with no pitch and change the material to metal. Then I add shadow boards and frieze boards and that's it.

Speaking of architects / engineers / designers not being in touch with the real world......I read this article yesterday.  It's quite interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-07-23/how-berlin-s-futuristic-airport-became-a-6-billion-embarrassment

Of course it would have to triple in cost to even come close to Boston's "big dig" but it's a start.

If there are a few questionable design choices I usually take my name off the border of the plan. If there are a number of really, really bad ugly ideas the following could happen as it happened to me a couple times before I had the ability to recognize it coming and pass on the job.

If you continually give them what they want ignoring all sense of design (and common sense) like a 4,000 sq. ft. 4 bedroom home with one bath, or an attached garage with no access directly to the house without going outside etc. Eventually they are either going to smarten up and realize how ugly it is or someone will let them know how bad it is. They will go to another designer or architect badmouthing you about your horrible ideas to whomever will listen.

Remember the customer is the designer when it comes out great but you're the designer when it is butt ugly and not functional. Don't believe me? Just ask the customer.......

@ Jay: These projects were panelized construction method and TY for the lead. You have some very nice homes on your website.

National does panels as well. Here at the builder I work for we panelize our homes in our shop. It is interesting at times..

@ Jay on Cape: You have hurricane areas too, which adds to horizontal loads. I have done 14 Extra Mart gas stations on east coast and 1/2 in your state. Last project Building official had issue with truss manufacturer and loads due to it being hurricane area. All worked out but it was a "NAIL BITER".

Next project in MA try to use National Lumber. They are a large lumber supplier / truss manufacture / turnkey framing & project management company. I was an EWP designer with them for a couple years and they are who I deal with now for all of our framing, roof trusses and pre-cut EWP floor systems.

@ Jay on Cape: You have hurricane areas too, which adds to horizontal loads. I have done 14 Extra Mart gas stations on east coast and 1/2 in your state. Last project Building official had issue with truss manufacturer and loads due to it being hurricane area. All worked out but it was a "NAIL BITER".

What town? If it's the coastal area I could probably guess which one.....

It's not too bad in a 110 wind zone. Most of the cookie cutter houses I draw for a production builder I can get away with using the 110 checklist so it doesn't have to go to an engineer. Anything that has to go to an engineer here could take 4-12 weeks and if you don't know the engineer you could get the one that say's " I know they've been building Cape Cod homes for 400 years but I can't get the dormer to work without a structural ridge"........

I'm in Massachusetts where I am in the state wind is 110 and snow is 25-30 lbs. The whole state from one side to the other goes from 25-65 lbs.

I grew up in San Bernardino right near where the 210 and 215 meet. I've seen some crazy wind there as well Joe. Trucks do blow over coming down the Cajon pass more often than one would think.

Hmmmmmm mmmmmmmm...... And just two weeks ago I opened a plan I created in 9.0 about 10 years ago.  I opened it in X1 and it was unworkable... 

In the title he states he's looking for an "as built".........

Richard, as Steve pointed out thanks for keeping it civil.  Believe it or not we're much closer on this issue than you think.  I just believe at some point you just have to slow down with the regulations.

Wow.........I thought I lived in a very liberal state but even here I don't know anyone all for over regulation.  I guess on the west coast the more the merrier? 

An increase over WHAT? Not having to comply with these code amendments? You are assuming that this money would be happily credited back to Owners and that the construction cost would be reduced accordingly.  In fact, construction costs pretty much align with sales prices and cost of living which are NOT based on code amendments. In California, construction costs in the Bay Area are often $300/SF or more, compared with less than $200/SF in other parts of the state. Do we have 50% more regulation than 50 miles away? Or 50% higher materials costs? Of course not. The construction price is driven by the comparable sales prices in the area and the higher cost of living here.

The increase is the direct cost of those code amendments.  If we could go back to the codes even 10 years ago (you remember, back when the homes could breathe) we would save approximately 6%.  Yes, assuming the same profit margin is preserved the price reduction would go to the homebuyer.

 Yes, I understand construction costs......I built homes on Nantucket where I would actually have to fly all sub-contractors in every day to work on the homes.  Try paying over $90 per round trip per person in airline tickets for every trade required to build a home and you can imagine the costs and the cost of additional code amendments to save us from ourselves.

Richard,

  The point of this whole thread is "over regulation" not today's cost versus historical cost.  Drop all of this "over regulation" and what you're saying is the cost would be more affordable than it was 30 years ago. I would hope that this would be the case as we have gotten more efficient at most tasks. So you're saying we should give this all back for the sake of "over regulation"?   Does this mean that every time CA comes out with new tools that make your process quicker and more efficient you give the savings back to your customers?

  Forget all the "cost data" or historical numbers and boil it down to this.  In MA in the past 10 years the increased additional code amendments cost amount to a minimum of 6% increase in construction cost before overhead or profit.  What does the customer have to show for this?  Some extra insulation, lowered energy costs?  Will they ever get a return on that investment?  Probably not.

Here's the problem with your argument, Michael. You don't get to whine about the cost of homes skyrocketing without including the fact that houses are FAR larger than they were 40 years ago. The inflation-adjusted cost per square foot hasn't changed that much. People just want more and more square footage, but complain when the total price for it is also more.  Boohoo.

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/

Richard,

    Your link cited the growth of living space per person.  That is by personal choice and freedom.  If you want a 4,000 sq. ft. home for your 4 member family that's great, that's your choice.  If you are a poor 4 member family and choose to attempt to build a minimal home with an incredible amount of over regulation that is not by choice.  I don't recall the check boxes on my last building permit application allowing me to forego the following regulations enacted just in the past few years.

 110 mph checklist compliance or engineered for 110 mph windzone, insulation values going from R-11 in walls to R-21. Ceiling R values now up to R-49 from R-30 etc.  New homes so tight they need a fan running constantly to provide fresh air. Mandatory blower door testing of all new homes. Of course not to mention the joist covering now required.  That alone just added 1% to a new home.

 I won't bore you with all that's required when in a 110 wind zone but the hundreds if not thousands of homes in this area (Cape Cod) built in the 18th or 19 century that still are intact thriving kind of make you wonder. We actually have a number of wood frame homes here built in the 17th century. These survived with typical wood frame and wood clad construction not masonry.

  Michael was "whining" about over regulation (mandatory) not your red herring - larger square footage (choice).  You live in California, birthplace of over regulation.  You should know the distinction.........

 Whenever I hear someone say "they don't build them like they used to" I always say "got that right, we have building codes now"...

I never knew of the 'cabinet mounted' section so I put that in the search bar and lo and behold, the outlet I usually use on islands pops right up in the menu - easier way to get to it, thanks!

 

It's called "Duplex (horizontal)" and you can place it anywhere: it doesn't need to be attached to a wall.  FYI there's another similar one called "Duplex (horiz)" that does NOT work on islands.

I just clicked over to your website and noticed you're in Osterville? I've designed a number of homes there.  Nice area!

Don't they want you to 1/2" drywall the sides of the joists also.

One or the other.  Either both sides of the web or the bottom of the bottom flange.

This is so true..... 

 

I am not sure what the big stink is here i.....  I assume you want the basement finished or you will soon,  so put 5/8" type x gyp and you are done.  To take it a step further,  here in  CA,  land of the fruits and nuts,  we have to sprinkle all new buildings.

 

I would rather use TJI's  (stronger)  and put the type x on the underside....  does not seem like a big deal,  what am I missing?

The code actually allows you to use 1/2" non type X as well as letting you not tape it. 

In this area most lots are flat or mostly flat so therefore it wouldn't be a walkout basement meaning about 98% of our houses the basements are not finished.  Sheetrocking the joists adds about $1.10 a square foot or about $1700 for our typical colonial or about $2600 for a ranch.  Have you seen the amount of plumbing / hvac in a basement in areas where it is common to run this in the basement?  A complete cluster fudge.....

 Using sheetrock it is actually easier to rock the webs rather than the bottom flange (see above).  The whiny plumber (he's not happy unless he's miserable and with him now drilling through 2 layers of rock he's the proverbial pig in......mud) really loves this...

 I agree about the I-joists.  It greatly minimizes callbacks.

Blah, blah, blah until it's your kid or mother's life that's been saved.

Bryce, shouldn't they go after the causes of the fire first and not this? Using this logic car manufactures should make their cars much safer to protect us from the distracted and drunk drivers? Where do they stop?

I know there is at least one firefighter here on the forum so perhaps they can chime in. In MA the firefighters have an unbelievable amount of power. I understand it is a national code (IRC) but here they've been pushing for sprinklers in residential for decades and they're another step closer. I would be shocked if sprinklers for residential weren't on the books by 2020 here in MA.

Hello All,

I live in MA and last July 1st the new IRC I-joist regulation came into effect here. For those of you who don't live in a state with the IRC code or one that doesn't enforce this particular paragraph the change basically requires joists over a basement area that are not nominal 2x's need to be either sheetrocked / boarded over, sprinkled or use Rocksul insulation. All 3 methods are a royal PITA!

I work for a builder that builds about 40-50 houses a year. They have just decided to switch the 1st floor back to 2 x 10's and deal with the shrinkage in warranty. There is just too much of a difference now in price.....

I haven't seen anyone else mention it so it must be limited in how many designers this has affected?

You should move this to the "seeking services" section. Also include what area of the country you're located.

I feel your pain Richard......Welcome to the world of those whom design 100% of their homes with a basement.

Check your building code first. In my state we have the IRC with state amendments. My state (Massachusetts) requires (2) doors with egress. The IRC requires the egress door to be "side hinged" with no requirement for additional doors.

From there the terrain masters here can help you with the cutout.

I don't think that fireplaces have changed since ver. 10, but the question is hard to figure out, if you mean the fireplace that's one thing, and the chimney has always been a p-solid. If you are talking about the fireplace just make it higher from the fireplace DBX, if it's a p-solid chimney, just drag it up. It all depends on how you made it.

I don't think they've changed since CA 97. 

polyline solid or in the real old days.......soffits.  There is no way to get CA's chimney to look like even the most basic chimney around here without polyline solids or sofffits or other symbols.  Inside view yes, outside, not even close.