In today’s residential community/marketplace, homeowners have numerous options for obtaining/generating designs for additions, remodeling projects, and new homes—ranging from software/CAD systems to “do it yourself,” to registered architects, along with design-build companies, and residential “designers,” (who are not necessarily registered architects, but who have the skills and experience required to provide the necessary deliverables). As with any market/service/industry, the results of the various options may vary, from outstanding to unusable, depending on a wide variety of factors—the skill of the practitioner, the viability of the design tools used, the communication skills of the various professionals, and the vagaries of the local jurisdiction reviewing/approving the project.
Regardless of the option chosen, the end result is always the same: a set of drawings/plans that (hopefully) represents the intent of the homeowner, and that enables the project to be approved and constructed in accordance with the various codes, standards, regulations, and levels of quality applicable to the project.
Why is “It” so Hard?
When comparing the level of difficulty in designing and building a new home, vs. the challenges of designing a building a remodeling project, new home design/construction is, by far, the easier of the two. Even taking into account the challenges of building a new home on an oddly shaped lot, or on difficult terrain, the fact is that with a new home the designer is starting with a “blank sheet of paper” and the builder is starting with a “bare piece of ground.” This is not to denigrate the complexities of new home construction, nor the skills required to properly design and build a new home; rather, it is to emphasize the extraordinary differences in the levels of complexity and the magnitude of the challenges between new home construction and remodeling.
In many ways, a major remodeling project is far more complex than the design and construction of a large airplane, an automobile, or a large boat. With an airplane, auto, or boat, the engineering requirements are well-known, well-tested, and proven—e.g., aircraft wing shapes and characteristics are thoroughly documented and tested; auto suspensions, engines, and electronics are proven; boat shapes and propulsion systems are understood; etc. In none of these examples are the designers and builders required to “retrofit” their product to an already-constructed entity whose design and construction characteristics are unknown and/or untested/unproven.
Consider the challenges in designing and constructing a major 2-story addition on a house that was built a few years ago (keep in mind that the challenges are exacerbated by the age of the house—the older the house, the greater the magnitude of the challenges):
The “What” and the “How”
For new home construction and remodeling projects, the design and construction phases can be roughly divided into the “what” (the design generated by the architect/designer) and the “how” (the builder/contractor implementing the design).
The “what” is encompassed in the drawings generated by the designer/architect, and should represent the homeowner’s goals/desires for the finished project. The level of detail included in the final plans will vary, depending on the project, the client, the skills of the designer/architect, and the skills of the builder/contractor. For example, a skilled builder will not need to see detailed interior elevations of a living room to be able to properly install crown molding and casing, but a skilled builder will definitely need to see and understand the framing and structural requirements for the project. Some designer/architects are highly skilled in developing detailed elevations (exterior and interior) that beautifully represent the homeowners’ desires, and their plans will provide those details to ensure the final “look” of the project. Structural and framing details may be left for the builder/contractor to develop and finalize, hence the differences between the “what” and the “how.”
In many ways, a major remodeling project is far more complex than the design and construction of a large airplane, an automobile, or a large boat. With an airplane, auto, or boat, the engineering requirements are well-known, well-tested, and proven—e.g., aircraft wing shapes and characteristics are thoroughly documented and tested; auto suspensions, engines, and electronics are proven; boat shapes and propulsion systems are understood; etc. In none of these examples are the designers and builders required to “retrofit” their product to an already-constructed entity whose design and construction characteristics are unknown and/or untested/unproven. Keep in mind that a builder must implement a plan requiring (literally) hundreds of thousands of parts, pieces, equipment suites, and systems, and implement each of them correctly, to ensure a successful project. For remodeling projects, considerable skill is required to implement those hundreds of thousands of parts with an existing structure, so that everything works as designed and expected.
For a remodeling project, the most critical, yet least-enjoyable and most tedious part of the project is determining and documenting the “as-builts” of the house—a set of plans showing the floor plan, structure, elevations, foundation, etc., of the existing building. An accurate set of “as-builts” is absolutely critical/essential to a sound design and to mitigating the challenges and risks of constructing the design. For most remodeling projects, some amount of demolition is required, especially for additions—walls have to be removed/moved; foundations need to be added or extended; roof lines need to be modified; HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems need to be moved/modified; etc. An accurate set of “as-builts” ensure that the demolition can be conducted safely, properly, and within the expected budget. There are ample “horror stories” related to the problems caused by inadequate and/or missing as-built drawings and demolition plans for remodeling projects.
If a designer/architect does not include an accurate set of “as-builts” and a corresponding demolition plan in the final drawings, the homeowner must rely on the skills of the builder to interpret the drawings and to safely and accurately perform the necessary tasks—the “how” of the project. Many skilled and experienced builders can look at a set of drawings, and quickly determine the required demolition, including the need for temporary shoring walls and other structural needs. Depending on the age of the existing house, the builder may be facing unknown challenges and issues that will be uncovered once demolition begins (e.g., the floor joists may be the old full-sized 2×12 lumber, vs. the modern 1 ½” x 11 ¼” dimensional lumber). Experienced builders may also rely on their extensive experience to size headers and beams, as well as the depth and thickness of footings and foundations.
One of the many problems that will arise when an experienced builder relies on experience to interpret and implement a set of drawings that do not include accurate “as-builts” and demolition plans is that experience alone is not acceptable to plan reviewers and inspectors. Plan reviewers and inspectors need to see, approve, and inspect properly designed and engineered plans, regardless of the builder’s expertise. For example, if a beam or header has not been identified and specified on the plans, an inspector (rightfully so) will require the plans to be updated and certified by a registered P.E. before the work will be allowed to continue. Similarly, if an addition requires a new foundation or an extension of an existing one, the depth of the footings, thickness of the concrete, and method of integration with the existing must be thoroughly documented in the plans, or risk having the work stopped by the inspectors.
Builders who have design-build experience are generally well-qualified to handle updates to plans, and any modifications required by inspectors—such builders have designers who can ensure that the changes will not compromise the intended outcome (i.e., the appearance/style of the project), and engineers who can ensure that the changes are structurally sound and compliant with applicable code. Of course, any such changes require time and additional costs, and may affect the overall production schedule significantly.
Perhaps more importantly, a builder may not be able to obtain a building permit unless the plans include an accurate set of “as-builts” and a detailed demolition plan. For a major remodeling project (e.g., a two-story addition), a typical plan review process may take several weeks. If a set of drawings is rejected, the builder must update the drawings and resubmit the plans, which starts the multi-week review process all over again. In most jurisdictions, the building review and inspection department “grapevine” is very effective—once a set of drawings has been rejected, the project becomes “marked” for more thorough scrutiny throughout the entire review and construction process, which adds to the builder’s challenges, costs, and schedules, and delays the completion of the project to the homeowner.
The bottom line is applicable for most any endeavor: The more time, effort, and detail invested in the generation of a sound, well-engineered design, the less time, effort, and cost required to implement the design in the field. The end result may be the same (i.e., a skilled builder may be able to effect the required changes in the field), but the cost and time required may be significantly different.