Flattop Story: Value Engineering
Early in the design process, we worked with our architect, John Stoeck, on the essential elements of the design. To maximize our view over the water, we imagined having a wide and deep, open-feeling great room with the west-facing wall of glass. Then, we imagined having a roof overhang that didn't require support; a cantilevered roof. We all agreed it would truly take advantage of the property.
We didn't ask a lot of questions about the cost of these features. We hadn't yet received an estimate for the build and assumed they would fit our budget. It was difficult for John to predict the cost because so much depends on the time and materials required and that's not up to him. At the time, it was easy to focus on the potential beauty of the design.
Looking back, I can now see that there were factors in the design that I didn't fully understand. The cantilevered roof overhang, for example, is not a standard feature. To support a large roof without vertical posts, the roof needed to be supported by multiple large steel beams. The same was true for our great room, which required more steel to support the interior roof. At the time, we didn't research the potential costs of what we needed to create the design we wanted. More than anything we fell deeper in love with the idea and how it might look.
Once the design was ready, we sent it to structural engineers, who provided specifications for what was needed. Then, we shared the designs and engineering specs with Drew Reed, our contractor, so he could provide an estimate. The bottom line ended up being much more than we expected, almost double. Everyone was surprised. Drew added notes to the estimate regarding what drove the costs up. One of the biggest items was steel. According to the engineers, the cantilevered roof had to withstand up to 140 mph wind and our design increased the chances of it becoming a sail that could pull the roof off the house.
This put us in an interesting situation. We had fallen in love with a design idea that looked amazing on paper, but required structural costs that we couldn't have easily predicted in the design phase. We knew steel would be needed, but not how much and at what cost. The only way to know that number was via engineers and builders.
To move forward, we needed to offset around 25% of the costs and worked with the architect to find solutions. We removed a large cantilevered bedroom, changed the shape of the deck, and more. When we passed the plans back to the engineers, we requested ideas for value engineering. This revision helped us save significant money, even after the additional architectural and engineering work.
Thankfully, we were able to keep the dream alive in terms of the roof and great room design. Having an unobstructed view of the water was one of keystone design ideas that needed to be a priority. We feared that we would regret not making it happen.
The video below shows the house's structure. The large beams are filled with wood to make them easier to connect to other parts of the house.
Looking back, we didn't ask enough questions about the potential costs of the designs we loved. We didn't fully understand what would be required, structurally and financially, to do what we wanted in the early stages. John, our architect, was not working within a specific budget at the time, so he was designing for beauty and aesthetics more than budget. At the time, that was what we wanted.
If I could do it over again, knowing what I know now, I might have requested additional designs that compromise on the aesthetics, but save on structural costs. An example is constraining the design to only use wood as the structural material. This might have changed the look of the house and taken away some of what we valued about the view. But, we'd have more context regarding what was possible and understand the trade-offs more clearly.
At the end of the process, we chose the steel and the view. We have no regrets whatsoever.
0 comments