Sunday April 14, 2024

Small Vs. Large Options

I was on my first work trip shortly after my move at the end of last month when the architect sent me a couple preliminary drawings that she called a "smaller option" and a "larger option". My initial reaction was not favorable, since neither plan looked remotely like what I was expecting.

Unfortunately, I saw this coming, as the architect had repeatedly ignored my requests to do what I call "guerrilla design" or "guerrilla engineering". This concept involves very frequent communications and multiple, rapidly developed iterations to arrive at basic concepts of understanding before anything remotely close to finished work is presented. My experience in the tech industry long ago convinced me that this is the best way to avoid wasting time and money building something the customer doesn't want.

The small option looked like a three car garage with a bunch of faux rooflines that are a common crutch among designers these days to create "interest" in a structure. Ignoring the difficulty in sealing roof designs like this and the costs associated with building them, this design wouldn't work because I need four garage spaces (3 for existing vehicles and one for a project vehicle or piece of heavy equipment). The garage also lacked the mechanical and office / lab space I previously indicated as mandatory in my design to support my business. The residence, while acceptable, amounted to a couple rather small bedrooms and a single bathroom on that floor. The entire concept looked like it was ripped off a prior job, rather than a reflection of the countless ideas and requirements I provided.

The larger option was a different building that had an odd extension from the center of the building to accommodate a stairwell to the second floor. This was a failed attempt to implement a design concept I had proposed involving a staircase and elevator shaft that penetrated the shed roof area and extended upward to the second floor. The architect's implementation did not look remotely pleasing to the eye, or again, anything close to the floor plan I submitted to her earlier, but the core building design did look a bit closer to what I wanted.

Three Options

So it was back to the drawing board once again, and a week or so later the architect provided three new sets of drawings: Option 1, pictured above, which was more or less exactly what I envisioned, Option 2, which was a smaller version of Option 1 that reduced the overall square footage of the second floor mostly through a lower roofline, and Option 3 (pictured below) which was a completely different, standalone barn-like structure with shed roof extensions off both sides.

I told her I liked Option 1 (pictured above), but as the conversation went on she seemed convinced that the best way to do this was to use Option 3 and come back later to design a separate home. Ignoring, for the moment, her likely motivation to extract another design fee from me, she asked for my "priorities" and I gave them to her, with emphasis on my need to transfer my remaining assets in NJ to the TN property as quickly as possible. She interpreted this priority as being satisfied by the standalone barn option and took some time to provide a newer design based on Option 3, as shown.

During this time I was working and didn't have a lot of time to deal with this design change, but I soon realized that I had already gone down this road previously, and I pointed out to her that if we attempted to build two structures, separated by a connector or completely separate, we'd wind up with costs that exceeded my budget. I pointed out that I thought the best way to go about this was to build a single structure as I had originally considered as a means to reduce overall horizontal area of the structure and hence cost to build it.

Another Design Meeting

After I returned home the architect and I had another design meeting, the point of which was to nail down the plan.

I have to admit I never wanted to put my residence on the second floor of a structure -- particularly one that had a high bay ceiling. I don't like stairs as they are a safety hazard in general, even for completely healthy people, and an impediment for aging people like me. The elevator I proposed in the stairwell was a solution to this problem, but an expensive one. The architect pointed out a system she had integrated with a recent project would likely add $50K to the build cost of the home plus the cost associated with the space required for a tall stairwell with approximately 23 treads.

Furthermore, she said that the stairwell consumed a considerable amount of space that I would have to heat and cool, which led her to suggest that the $50K I had slated for the elevator would be better served building a structure with more usable space. She then came back to Option 3, or a single story barn-type structure with shed roofs extending on at least one side.

I initially resisted this because I did not want to be put in the position of building a structure that would serve my business interests and provide temporary housing, but not satisfy my long term need to actually move to the property and live there full time.

She then volunteered that the Option 3 building was based on a project she had recently designed for a client that wanted to use the high ceiling core of the building to store RVs, and that the building was quoted at $350K. That is, of course, highway robbery for what is essentially a big box, but that is the reality of residential construction these days.

I thought about it for a time and then realized that this would satisfy my top priorities, which are:

1. Get a permanent presence in TN so I can move my residential and business addresses to that location.

2. Provide a suitable, climate controlled location to which I can move the assets I left behind in NJ, including my classic cars and tools.

3. Move business assets, including my lab and IT equipment from FL to TN and setup my lab and other development systems, as I don't have the space for them at my FL home.

4. Provide a location from which I can GC the build of a separate home on the property in order to reduce costs.

With all that in mind, I green lit the barn design effort and sent her what I called Barn Rev 12.

This plan included a Mechanical / Utility / IT room on the left side, which was intended to house my server racks as well as clothes facilities, a utility sink, and all the mechanical systems serving the building. Adjacent to that room I planned a generic space I'll use for manufacturing / assembly / test as well as an office that will allow me to deal with logistics as needed to ship products.

On the right side I planned a space I could use as a temporary residence and eventually, once I move into my permanent home, convert it to a lab. The closet adjacent to the bedroom would then then be converted into a parts storage area. Ideally that closet would be closer to the Assembly area but this is a justifiable compromise, given the short and long term needs for this space.

The main entryway was planned to be on the right side of the building, but this may change to the left side, depending on how I orient the building on the property. Just off that entryway is a kitchen that I planned to use as my primary cooking facilities when I'm living there and, later, as a convenience for me and any employees I hire while working in the building.

While I acknowledged at this point that building two structures will, in fact, cost more than I care to spend, the upside is this building will facilitate the building of my company and that will ultimately generate additional revenue as needed to build the post-and-beam home I wanted in the first place.