Posts Tagged ‘cost’

July 10th Lake Sunapee Open House and Q&A with Green Building Experts!

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

When:  Saturday, July 10th, 4:00 PM — 6:00 PM

Registration Required!   Call Bonin Architects at 603-504-6009

Directions given to registrants only.

 If you are thinking of building a home or are purchasing a home in Sunapee, New London, Newbury, or another surrounding town that needs a renovation, call to register to attend our next Open House near Sunapee Harbor on scenic Lake Sunapee!

Not only will you be able to tour a beautiful custom home, you’ll be able to interview area green building experts at a Q&A discussion.  Gather your questions and ideas for Green Architect Jeremy Bonin of Bonin Architects & Associates, Custom Builder Everett Pollard of Northcape Design / Build, and Dan O’Halloran of Colby Real Estate!  Ask about:

Green building materials – Local construction costs – Green home design & why it is important

Solar and geothermal heating – Metal roofs vs. asphalt shingles – Shoreland Protection Act guidelines

and more!

Web_main_logo_final

Jeremy Bonin, AIA NCARB LEED AP:

Jeremy is a principal partner of Bonin Architects & Associates, award-winning architect, and the author of TIMBER FRAMES: Designing Your Custom Home.  Jeremy has a special interest in sustainable design and green building.  

 

logoNorthcape

Everett Pollard, AIA assoc.,  AIBD, CGP, CGR:

 For over thirty years Everett has been designing and building award-winning custom homes in the Lake Sunapee area. As a Certified Green Builder, Everett’s  priorities are successfully balanced between preserving the environment and providing superior customer service to his clients.

 logo

Dan O’Halloran:

Dan is a high-energy realtor who specializes in residential real estate and uses the most current marketing and advertising technology and techniques available in the real estate industry to achieve maximum visibility for every client.  His background in finance and marketing rounds out his qualifications and enhances his skills he offers.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA), Green Building, Remodeling, The Building Process | No Comments »

A very cool solar roof system!

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

01_R_FS_Pt-Townsend_L

 

I just saw this solar standing-seam metal roof system in one of my trade magazines!  Not only does it look great, but it will qualify for federal stimulus rebates of up to 30% of the cost.

FusionSolar™ is a thin-film solar laminate for commercial and residential applications that’s integrated with standing seam metal roof panels. Manufactured for Custom-Bilt Metals by Uni-Solar®, the world leader in thin-film technologies and solar electric laminates, FusionSolar is bonded directly to the standing seam roof panels in the factory. The flexibility and durability of the laminate makes it ideal for metal roofs, where expansion, contraction and curving are considerations. No roof penetrations are required, and because the material is lightweight, no additional structural support is required.

A COMPLETE SYSTEM

FusionSolar is installed as a complete system with all the necessary components. It includes all the electrical components, detailed schematics and specifications that an electrical subcontractor needs for installation.

No specialized solar installers are required. Sheet metal and roofing professionals install the standing seam roof with the thin film already attached. Then an electrical subcontractor completes the installation.

Once installed, the system will begin generating clean, renewable and dependable electric power. Working together with public utilities, the system draws electricity from the grid if needed. Those in the structure use electricity as they do now, and won’t notice any difference.

HIGHLY DURABLE

The laminate bond that’s created between the thin film and the metal roof has been tested to withstand winds of 160 mph. Once installed, the laminate can be safely walked on without causing damage.

FASTER RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Offering a lower cost-per-watt than roof-mounted polycrystalline panels, FusionSolar will pay for itself in 10 years or even less. Once installed, it’s a fixed cost that’s immune from rate hikes.

AESTHETIC DESIGN

The thin-film laminate can cover all of a standing seam roof or just a portion. Lying flat and flush with the surface, the thin film flows with the roof profile, even on curved designs.

NO ROOF PENETRATION REQUIRED

Unlike large polycrystalline panels that are attached by drilling through a roof, FusionSolar is fused directly to the standing seam panel. There’s no roof penetration or possibility of leaking as a result of the installation.

HIGHLY EFFICIENT

Compared to other solar technologies, FusionSolar thin-film laminate achieves a higher relative efficiency under high temperatures and low light.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE

Electricity generated by FusionSolar produces no pollution, replacing electricity that is most often created by burning coal.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Product Selection, Stimulus Incentives | No Comments »

Homeowners can still grab energy rebate

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

More than half a megawatt of solar and wind power could be generated at homes throughout New Hampshire due to a rebate program designed to spread alternative energy.  Since July 1, the state has received 229 applications from households for the rebates, totalling about $1.2 million. Most of them – 194 – were for solar panels, and the rest were for small-scale wind turbines.

“We anticipate that through the end of our first year of operation we’ll be able to meet all of the demand for residential application,” said Jack Ruderman, director of the state’s Sustainable Energy Division. “If you’re a homeowner and you want to get a system, you’re in great shape. After July (of 2010, when the program must be renewed), it’s harder to predict.”

The total installed capacity of the applications is 641 kilowatts, or more than half a megawatt.  This is tiny by utility standards: A small power plant has a capacity of 15 megawatts, or 23 times the total of all these applications, while a big one like Public Service of New Hampshire’s Merrimack Valley plant in Bow can generate almost 800 times as much electricity.

On the other hand, it is a huge expansion of the amount of the state’s “distributed power,” a term for electricity generated at the site it is used rather than by large, centralized power plants. Aside from the pollution benefits of coming from solar or wind power rather than burning fossil fuels, this electricity can reduce the need to build more power lines to carry power from power plants.

These are different from large-scale alternative energy programs like the 25-megawatt Lempster Mountain wind farm or the 51-kilowatt solar array that PSNH placed on its Manchester headquarters.

In the Nashua region, 15 applications had been turned in by mid-December, totalling 44 kilowatts; all but one are for solar panels. They are requesting $73,000 in rebates, roughly one-fifth of the total $378,000 cost of the projects.  Requests for applications came in from all over the state – from Nashua to Newfields, Lyndeborough to Laconia, Pelham to Portsmouth.  Facilities ranged in cost from $3,600 (a tiny, 960-watt solar system in Gorham) to $52,422 (a wind tower in Orange).

Most applicants will receive the maximum rebate of $6,000, although no rebate could be more than half the installed cost.  Money for the rebates comes from the state’s renewable portfolio standard, which gets money from the state’s utilities, mostly through what are called alternative compliance payments.  The total amount collected is about $4.5 million, so there’s more than enough to cover all home rebates, Ruderman said.

That money also will be used for future commercial rebate programs, which are going to be far more expensive, and perhaps even projects contracted out by the Sustainable Energy Division.

 David Brooks,  Nashua Telegraph.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Stimulus Incentives | No Comments »

Is the McMansion Dead?

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

It’s the scapegoat of the housing bust, and that’s not all. From accusations of ostentatious overconsumption to environmental indifference, the McMansion has taken some brutal hits in the recession economy. Are those blows lethal enough to send starter castles to their grave? Or will they live to see another boom?

Efforts to stem the proliferation of monster homes have reached epic proportions in recent years. But the battle lines are sometimes fuzzy because the enemy isn’t always clear.

What exactly is a McMansion?  By some accounts, it’s the gargantuan greenfield tract home with a Hummer parked out front that perpetuates sprawl and makes gas guzzling a way of life. Others use the derisive term to describe ostentatious infill homes that—while walkable to schools, shops, and transit—tower over beloved bungalows in established neighborhoods in a way that is less than neighborly.

But different people live by different standards of propriety, and that’s where codifying the offenders becomes difficult.   “One market’s McMansion is another market’s standard issue house,” notes Robert Lang, former co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech who now heads up the newly minted Brookings Mountain West program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “If you’re in Dallas, 5,000 square feet is the house you buy on a two-faculty salary. But if you are in Boston or San Francisco, this is not a normal-sized house. It’s not fair to come up with a blanket definition. However, every area has its over-the-top houses, and people know which ones they are.”

This may explain why some would-be reformers find it easier to define the essence of McMansion-hood by its antithesis.  Dave Wax, co-founder of the online company FreeGreen (which offers free house plans for small, high-performance homes), defines McMansions as houses that are built to minimum code specifications and saddlebagged with spaces that are used less than 30 percent of the time by their owners. “Like all stereotypes, it’s a term that has no definition and so is inherently unfair,” Wax concedes. “That said, having a bad guy is necessary for any social change. And so the McMansion is the bad guy.”

Can the vilified McMansion, in its various forms and habitats, survive a post-recession economy? Many signs suggest the odds are stacked against it. Lending standards have tightened, and many buyers no longer have the cash on hand for down payments on fancy homes. Add to that a U.S. unemployment rate that continues to hover around 9.5 percent and resale competition from foreclosures (many of which are McMansions themselves), and the outlook seems bleak for showy homes that many consider emblems of decadence and greed.

Even for those who can afford them, trophy homes constitute an image problem at a time when modesty has become fashionable. One recent CNNMoney.com poll asked more than 33,000 online readers if they thought American homes had gotten too big; 69 percent said yes.

Demand for big houses could also fizzle as population shifts place families with kids in the home buying minority. Some demographers estimate that up to 80 percent of new households formed over the next 15 years will be child-free as Baby Boomers empty their nests and career-driven Millennials postpone marriage and kids.

Arthur “Chris” Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah, predicts that as a result, the nation could see a surplus of 22 million large-lot homes by 2025. Household sizes are trending smaller at the same time that household budgets have become leaner. That makes butler pantries and media rooms a tougher sell.

In fact, the residential landscape is already changing. In a recent poll of 500 residential architects by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), only 4 percent of respondents reported that their clients were requesting more square footage in new projects, compared to 16 percent in 2008. A subsequent AIA Home Design Trends Survey found significant decreases in consumer spending on features such as in-law suites, three-car garages, and home theaters. Builders are singing a similar tune, with 90 percent of respondents in a recent NAHB poll indicating plans to build smaller.

So it’s no surprise that American house sizes, which doubled from 1960 to the height of the boom, are now backpedaling. The average house breaking ground in the first quarter of 2009 was 2,335 square feet, down from 2,629 square feet in the second quarter of 2008, according to NAHB figures. Since 2007, median sizes for new single-family homes have fallen nearly 10 percent.

By:  Jenny Sullivan – Builder Magazine

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Trends | No Comments »

Tankless Water Heaters vs. Conventional Storage Tanks

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Hot water is a hot issue for homeowners, builders, and remodelers these days.

Why? Many current buyers are interested in homes that are energy efficient and economical to operate, which are factors that can be dramatically affected by a home’s hot water usage. According to the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, water heating is the third-largest expense in most homes, accounting for 14% to 25% of a home’s expenses. In some cases, that percentage may even be higher, which means energy-conserving hot water solutions also could result in big cost savings for homeowners in this difficult economy.

Currently, the most popular energy-efficient option for water heating is a tankless water heater, also known as an on-demand system. Unlike a traditional tank that heats a reservoir of water 24 hours a day, a tankless unit activates only as needed. When there is a demand for heated water, cold water travels through the tankless unit, where a gas burner quickly heats it to the preset temperature.

According to www.smarterhotwater.com, a Web site launched by Alabama-based Rheem Manufacturing, the average annual operating cost for a conventional storage is between $230 and $285, nearly twice the cost for a tankless system. They estimate a tankless hot water heater would cost $165 to $170 annually to operate.  Given those numbers, the decision to go tankless might seem simple, but like many other construction technologies, tankless water heater usage in the United States lags behind the rest of the world.

Cost could be a factor since in the U.S. market, tankless heaters cost significantly more than a conventional system. But it also could be a matter of educating the American market about the product. In recent years, manufacturers say awareness has grown significantly, and so has usage, which has seen double-digit increases. Consumers, not builders, are driving the demand for tankless water heaters.

Does that mean that everyone should install tankless in their homes? There are pro’s and con’s. While tankless technology can reduce a home’s energy costs by as much as 25% annually compared to a standard 40-gallon tank heater, there are other considerations. Standard storage tanks now qualify for Energy Star certification. And tankless systems may have other issues that negate its energy performance and lower operating costs.

Here’s a handy guide outlining the pros and cons of tankless water heaters versus conventional storage tanks that you can use to evaluate the options for your situation:

Conventional Water Heater

Pros for Conventional

  • Proven technology that builders and home owners know and trust. The straightforward system has been around for years and works well.
  • Low product cost and low installation cost. A basic 30-gallon electric tank can be purchased for less than $300. Installation is fairly simple.
  • Inexpensive replacement cost. If and when a water heater goes bad, the system can easily replaced with a similar unit for about $500 to $800.
  • Energy Star tanks are now available. As of this year, the Energy Star program certifies conventional high-efficiency gas water heaters, so it’s possible to save energy and money. Units must have an energy factor of .62.

Cons for Conventional:

  • Conventional tanks are always on. No matter how energy efficient it is, a storage tank cycles on a regular basis to heat and reheat water at a preset temperature, using energy to heat the water whether a homeowner needs it or not.
  • Big and bulky. Most storage tanks take up precious real estate in a mechanical or laundry room, especially in smaller homes such as apartments, condos, or townhouses.
  • May be inadequate. Depending on the capacity and household hot water needs, a conventional storage tank may not be able to meet demand. “If not sized correctly for peak demand, tank water heaters will run out of hot water,” according to www.smarterhotwater.com. In addition, only about 70% of the hot water in a typical storage tank is available for use.
  • Less versatile installation. The unit needs a fairly large space for installation.
  • Less durable. The life expectancy of a conventional hot water tank is about 12 to 15 years.

Tankless Hot Water Heater

Pros for Tankless:

  • Saves energy. The unit only operates when there is a demand for hot water, which can reduce its energy cost by about 25% annually.
  • Highly efficient. The most efficient storage tank has an energy factor of about .67, but, according to Energy Star, some tankless units have energy factors as high as .95.
  • Reliable. If a unit is sized properly, a gas tankless heater can deliver a continuous supply of water at a preset temperature (plus or minus one degree) at a rate of typically 2 gallons to 5 gallons per minute. The units never run out of hot water, though the flow rate may be inadequate during times of peak demand, according to www.smarterhotwater.com.
  • Compact size. The typical tankless heater is about the size of a small suitcase, which takes up significantly less space than a conventional tank.
  • Durable. It has a life expectancy of 20 years or more.
  • Versatile. The unit is easy to zone and it can go almost anywhere in the house.
  • Tankless units cost about twice as much as traditional storage tanks. A typical tankless unit may cost about $700 and can easily top $1,500.
  • Installation is expensive. In addition to the high product cost, installation for the unit and the necessary piping can be pricey. They also need very good venting, which is also expensive.
  • Retrofit is pricey and complicated. Unlike a traditional tank, retrofitting a home with a tankless unit is difficult and expensive. “In new construction, the labor time required to install a tankless water [heater] is about the same as a tank water heater,” according to www.smarterhotwater.com. But the equation changes in a remodeling situation. The process is complicated, and the installed costs to replace a tank water heater with a tankless unit can be as high as $3,000.
  • Best performance comes from gas units. Though gas-fired tankless units are great performers for whole-house use, electric units are woefully inadequate. Electric units are not Energy Star-rated, Aikens says, and “require significant amounts of energy to use.”

Cons for Tankless:

  • Tankless units cost about twice as much as traditional storage tanks. A typical tankless unit may cost about $700 and can easily top $1,500.
  • Installation is expensive. In addition to the high product cost, installation for the unit and the necessary piping can be pricey. They also need very good venting, which is also expensive.
  • Retrofit is pricey and complicated. Unlike a traditional tank, retrofitting a home with a tankless unit is difficult and expensive. “In new construction, the labor time required to install a tankless water [heater] is about the same as a tank water heater,” according to www.smarterhotwater.com. But the equation changes in a remodeling situation. The process is complicated, and the installed costs to replace a tank water heater with a tankless unit can be as high as $3,000.
  • Best performance comes from gas units. Though gas-fired tankless units are great performers for whole-house use, electric units are woefully inadequate. Electric units are not Energy Star-rated, Aikens says, and “require significant amounts of energy to use.”

(Excerpted from Builder Magazine)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Green Building | No Comments »

Exorbitant design fees?

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Exorbitant design fees?
Your architect or designer may not be making as much as you think

by Richard Morrison, AIA, ASID

I occasionally hear from people who are shocked by some of the hourly rates that architects and designers charge, perhaps anywhere from $75/hour to $250/hour or more. No doubt they are comparing these rates to their own hourly income (or the annual equivalent) as an employee, and imagine that these design professionals are just raking in the money. As a public service to my design colleagues, I am going to let you in on some of the “behind the scenes” financials.

The reality is that an hourly rate needs to cover much more than what a design professional takes home as his/her pay. Let’s take a billing rate of, say, $120/hour as an example.

To start with, not all time is billable. Most independent practitioners and owners of firms are thrilled when they can get 50 percent of their time billed. Some of the non-billable tasks that owners of firms must deal with are: accounting and billing, meeting with prospective contractors and product representatives, marketing, phone calls from non-business sources, fixing the printer that’s just jammed, attending trade shows and seminars, setting up filing systems, dealing with their insurance agent, listening to employees’ or colleagues’ gripes — well, the list is endless.

So, if only 50 percent of the time is billable, that means that each billed hour must cover two working hours — effectively creating an income rate of $60/hour.

But there are many expenses that need to be paid out of this money: office rent, new computers and software, insurance, phones, office supplies, professional licenses and dues, non-billable consultants, reference books — well, the list is again almost endless. It’s not uncommon to see 50 percent of total revenue go towards this “overhead” of maintaining an office.

So now we are down to a net (pre-tax) take-home revenue of maybe $30/hour from that original $120/hour — hardly supporting an opulent lifestyle in this part of the country. Of course, some professionals can reduce their overhead to the bone and work longer hours to generate more income, but it’s not a get-rich-quick profession.

The situation is somewhat similar when a design office bills for employees. It is common to see billing rates of 2.5 to 3 times the actual hourly wage of an employee. So if an employee is being paid, say, $25/hour, you will likely be billed $60-$75/hour for that employee. Remember that the employer is paying not only the direct wages of $25/hour, but also for vacation days, sick days, workers’ compensation insurance, health insurance, training days, and other non-billable time. The billing rate must cover not only that employee’s costs, but also general office overhead costs such as an office manager and rent on a larger space, and the equipment and supplies needed by that employee. Oh, and maybe a little profit, too.

While all of this is likely to be self-evident to anyone owning their own business, hopefully, those who don’t will now understand the reason for these “exorbitant” design fees. I always encourage people to focus on the overall value that is being provided by a design professional. Usually, it far exceeds the fees being charged.

Richard Morrison, AIA, ASID, is a Menlo Park architect and interior designer

Tags: , ,
Posted in Design | No Comments »

6 Myths of Green Consumers

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

New study shatters stereotypes of what motivates buyers.

By: Jennifer Goodman

 

 

A new national study of green consumers contradicts several long-held stereotypes about them: The environment is not their top concern, their kids are not influencing them to be green, and while many know what they should do to save the planet, they often don’t do it.  As a result, marketing messages aimed at this group often fall on deaf ears, says Suzanne Shelton, whose Knoxville, Tenn., firm, Shelton Group, conducted the study.

 

“Most green advertising is created as if there’s one pool of green consumers and they’re all motivated by ‘Save the planet!’ messaging,” Shelton says. “We need a revolution in this thinking. Not all green consumers are the same, they’re not all motivated by the same messages, and they’re not all inclined to buy only green products.”

 

Released Aug. 21, the Green Living Pulse study polled 1,007 U.S. consumers who at least occasionally buy green products (77% of the population) and found there is no typical “green consumer.”  The study discovered six myths about this group:

 

Myth 1: Green consumers’ top concern is the environment.
When asked to identify their top concern, the economy, by far, is No. 1 (with 59% calling it their top concern) and the environment falls far behind (8%).

 

Myth 2: Green consumers’ main motivation when reducing their energy use is to save the planet.
When asked the most important reason to reduce energy consumption, 73% chose “to reduce my bills/control costs” and only 26% chose “to lessen my impact on the environment.”

 

Myth 3: Green consumers are all-knowledgeable about environmental issues.
For example, the survey asked, “From what you have read or heard about CO2 (carbon dioxide), please place a check beside any of the following statements you think are true.”  Almost half (49%) chose the incorrect answer, “It depletes the ozone layer.”

 

Myth 4: Green consumers fall into a simple demographic profile.
While the study detected some demographic tendencies, it found that green consumers aren’t easily defined by their age, income, or ethnicity.  

 

Myth 5: Children play a big part in influencing their parents to be green.
Only 20% of respondents with children said their kids encouraged them to be greener by, for example, promoting recycling and turning off lights.

 

Myth 6:  If buyers just knew the facts they’d make greener choices.
The study showed that knowledge does not always lead to eco-conscious behavior. Individuals who answered all of the science-related questions correctly did report participating in a significantly higher average number of green activities, such as driving a fuel-efficient car or lowering their thermostat during the winter; however, the 25- to 34-year-old age group consistently answered the questions correctly, yet, on average, this group’s green activity levels were lower than those of older respondents.

 

“Because green consumers are being stereotyped, and these myths we tested are embraced by marketers as facts, many green messages are falling on deaf ears,” Shelton says. “If these messages were better targeted, more people would be buying green products, conserving electricity, and doing more to save the planet.” 

 

Jennifer Goodman is Senior Editor Online for EcoHome.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Green Building | No Comments »

Fire Sprinkler Systems

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Did you know that the new building code requires fire sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and town houses? The code appears in the 2009 IRC, but doesn’t go into effect until the start of 2011.  When New Hampshire adopts the code, my understanding is that the provision for fire sprinklers could be made optional but this is probably doubtful.  In other words, sprinklers will most likely be mandated as of 2011.
 
The whole purpose of fire sprinklers is to save lives but there are people out there who think otherwise. Many are passionately opposed to the new requirement and are spending a lot of time and money trying to block the code from being adopted.
 
Why?

Those who oppose the mandate say they’re concerned about the potential of pipes freezing in colder climates, damage from accidental discharge of sprinkler heads, and the availability of adequate water supply in homes served by well water. Let’s take a look at those arguments…
 
Frozen pipes?
I think most of this concern relates to a standalone system, which is a system of piping separate from the home’s plumbing. The water in these pipes is stagnant until a sprinkler head activates. Stagnant water is more susceptible to freezing than moving water (backflow valves are required to prevent contaminating the water supply), but what are the chances of water freezing in a heated home that is properly insulated? And don’t we take precautions in new construction to protect all piping from freezing? Obviously, all pipes containing water need to be installed on the warm side of the insulation!  An alternative to the standalone system is multipurpose systems; the piping in these systems is part of the home’s cold-water line, often made of PEX (which is less susceptible to freeze damage), and the water’s always moving.  Concern about frozen pipes is a pretty lame argument.
 
Accidental discharge?
Sprinkler heads are activated by very high heat, like the kind that isn’t likely unless there are flames present (155°F-175°F, depending on the type of head). So only the head(s) closest to the flames actually discharge water. Research shows that chances of an accidental discharge due to a defect in the sprinkler head are 1 in 16,000,000.
 
Well water?
The NFPA 13D (the National Fire Protection Association’s residential-sprinkler code) requires enough water for two sprinkler heads (which use about 26 gpm combined) to discharge for 10 minutes (for homes over 2000 sq. ft.; it’s 7 minutes for smaller homes). Achieving that volume can be accomplished by a pressure tank(s), a bladder tank(s), a storage tank(s), a cistern, a well equipped to draw that amount—or a combination of these.
 
It’s got to be the cost!
Most people—including those opposed to the code—get wound up about the cost. Money’s tight all around these days, so any increase in construction cost is certainly a concern here. But the cost is much less than you probably think. Costs can range quite a bit around the country, from 87¢ to $4 per sq. ft. (materials and installation). The average is about $1.50 per sq. ft., which typically comes out to about 1% to 2% of total construction cost for modest homes and much less for upper end homes. Our experience has been that it is about $2.00 per sq. ft. locally and less than 1% of the total cost of our homes.  So, for our clients, having a fire sprinkler installed in a nicely finished 3,000-sq.-ft. home will cost about $6,000. That’s pretty cheap insurance in my opinion for a $900,000 home.  Think of what it would cost to repair the smoke and water damage from even a minor fire that was put out using the fire department; more than $6,000 I would wager!  And speaking of insurance, I would think that you would get a pretty nice discount from your homeowner’s insurance for having a home protected by a fire sprinkler system.
 
Now, consider that fire sprinklers and smoke alarms combined reduce the risk of death by 82%. And in the 20 years that Scottsdale, Ariz., has had fire sprinklers on the books, no one has died from a fire in a home equipped with sprinklers.
 
Is it worth the extra expense?  What do you think?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Construction | 1 Comment »

Guest Post: How much does it cost per square foot?

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Guest Post By Robert Knight

[Edited text of article which appeared in Fine HomeBuilding]

I am a residential architect, and almost every potential client that walks in the door wants to know “How much per square foot does it cost to build around here.”

For many years I had a casual, commonly accepted number for that question. Then about 15 years ago, after a spate of inflation I found out I was suddenly off by about 25%, so I set out to get more scientific about tracking what our houses cost.

In trying to systematize our price data it became apparent I needed to have a systematic way to compare buildings with different components in order to get a universal kind of square footage.

Unfortunately, having this universal square foot number doesn’t by itself solve problems when talking to clients because they have run into many different descriptions of square feet–with no disclaimers attached.

Generally, people selling houses want them to seem big so the 25’X40’ sq. ft. screen porch might well be counted as 1000 sq.ft. of living space in the Realtor’s description. On the other hand when someone has been told that it cost’s “$200/sq.ft. to build a house” they want the number of square feet to be as small as possible so the estimated cost is less—and then they multiply only by the interior “heated” sq.ft and get that screen porch for free.

Of course reality lies in between. The screen porch isn’t free, but it doesn’t cost as much as heated finished space.

To get an universal “square foot” we have developed a series of fractional multipliers that we use to get what we call “factored square feet” (see spreadsheet ).

We start with the Gross Heated square feet. This is a reasonably accepted industry standard. The floor area measured to the outside of the rough walls–as the building is dimensioned. We get this for all finished floors and total it separately, because this number by itself has other uses–for solar calculations, bank appraisals, real estate questions etc. This is Total Gross Heated Space, and it is definitely what a lot of people think of as “The square footage of the house”–but it is just the beginning.

Two story spaces we calculate and multiply by 0.5. It is an industry standard that cathedral ceilings are 1.5 times spaces with flat ceilings, (remember we have already gotten the basic floor space in our “Gross heated space” so this 0.5 is adding to that). Does it really increase the cost of a room 50% to have a cathedral ceiling? If that ceiling has open beams and lots of skylights and balconies overlooking it, it may be more than that. If it is simply a cathedral ceiling, probably not–but this is an empirical way of comparing dissimilar buildings so some simplification of reality is called for. In my experience, micro adjusting these multipliers is not wise, because it implies a level of precision that this methodology doesn’t have. This is good for a first look. When you want to know what it will really cost, spend the time and “stick it out”.

What of the other spaces???

Full basements: We usually add 10% for them. Why not more? In Maine if we use frost walls they are probably 5’ deep anyway, and we always put a “rat slab” in the crawl space, so going to 8’ doesn’t add that much. Multiplier = 0.10.

Attics: If they are really unfinished space under the roof eves with only a plywood subfloor we usually take them at 20%. If its just trussed space we see it as part of the roof and add nothing. Incidentally I usually don’t count space under the eves behind knee walls that are under 4’ high at all in my floor calculations, so adding 20% for a real attic (which is probably more than it costs) tends to compensate for throwing away that square footage. Multiplier =0.20.

Insulated Garage: We think is about 40% of the cost of heated house space. They usually have a good deal of mechanical stuff in them, good windows, expensive doors, a shop work bench, maybe a stair up to a second floor “attic”, but they are inherently simple spaces.
Multiplier = 0.40.

Uninsulated or “Raw” garage: We usually use 30%. Because there is less of the above reasons. Multiplier =0.30.

Covered decks, screen porches, and roof decks over inhabited spaces we take at 40% because they involve lots of expensive finishes and detailing. Multiplier =0.40.

Open wood decks we figure at 20%. We find a deck with PT framing and WRC surface, some stairs, railings; some built in seating goes currently for around $38/sq.ft. which is about 20% of heated space at $200 sq.ft. But, you think, what if the house is a luxury model at $300 a foot, the deck won’t increase to $60 sq.ft. Won’t it? Won’t it in fact be a granite patio or be made out of South American Ipe on that level of house? If it truly won’t, then reduce the multiplier–but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The point of this is that the multipliers should reflect the kinds of buildings that you build so that the “Factored sq.ft. number” that you come up with for your buildings will allow you to compare dissimilar buildings.

When we develop a square foot sheet for a house that is at all atypical we often times will adjust the multipliers to be what we feel is a more accurate reflection of this particular building–but they rarely change more than .10 up or down. The important thing is to go through the exercise, and to realize this is only a first look at a building–before you really have enough information to truly cost it out.

Our clients often want to massage these numbers. I resist this, because the only way they get massaged is downward. If a 1000 sq.ft. 2 story space is multiplied times 0.5 it adds 500 “factored sq. ft.” to the house square footage. If that is multiplied times a sq.ft. cost of $300/sq.ft it amounts to $150,000.00. Surely it doesn’t add this much to the cost. It probably doesn’t, but other areas might add more and if we only reduce the areas that seem too high we will end up with a very optimistic estimate.

When we resist our clients efforts to massage this spreadsheet it has proven to be a pretty good predictor of building costs.

 (Note:  Northcape Design/Build has adapted Robert Knight’s system with his permission for our own “Estimated Project Budget Range”.  This system provides budget guidance for our customers in the very beginning phases of each project using comparisons from similar projects that we have completed.)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The Building Process | No Comments »