This may have come up before and I will do a search.
And this is not meant to offend any profession.
I would like to get an engineer involved in designing a major addition to our house.
The idea is to have things checked over and ‘approved’ before the plan is submitted to the town for a permit.
Is this a viable alternative to hiring an architect or a design/build firm ?
Cost is an issue and I am planning on doing most of the work myself.
This would include drawing up the plans and specifying the materials.
Thanks for any feedback.
Replies
Depends on your skill and ability as a designer, and what the city will require. Assuming you can do the drawings properly, sounds like a good idea.
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
The craftsman formerly known as elCid
Is this a viable alternative to hiring an architect or a design/build firm ?
Sort of. Yes, this can work, depending on what your building inspector requires in terms of drawings. And yes, a structural engineer can look at your plans and evaluate structural elements.
The architect's greatest value is in the design. The flow of the space, the connection between the rooms, the use of natural light. I have always found that plans drawn by the homeowner typically look just like that, plans drawn by a homeowner. I understand you want to keep the cost down. If these design elements are important to you, you may want to find an architect who would be willing to look at your plans and just make suggestions based on what you have drawn. (for a fee, of course) The final drawings/changes are up to you, the draftsman, to complete.
carpenter in transition
Not only would a structural engineer's stamp be an alternative to an architect's but there would be cases and jurisdictions in which the structural stamp would be required and the architect's review wouldn't cut it.
As pointed out, a (good) architect adds other things of value - design elements apart from whether the building is going remain standing after wind, snow, and earthquakes.
I've seen (eastern) rural areas where an architect's stamp suffices for unusual structural elements. In the big city and on the West Coast (earthquake country) you are more likely to need an engineer's stamp when deviating from standard construction.
Sorry to add confusion instead of a clear answer, but some architecs have engineers on staff for the science part of a project. The main benefit of the Arch. is in designing the plans to look and feel right, the engineer makes sure it can stand up. If you can do both, then all you have to do is convince county or city that you are correct. Have fun. I hired the arch, and think it was worth all that money.
Dan
In parts of Northern NJ an architect is required for new living spaces to insure that egress and other fire/life safety issues are addressed. Except for major structural element design, the engineer's stamp is no good without the architect's sign-off for plan approval....that's not a mistake, it's rustic
"in Northern NJ an architect is required to insure that egress"
Wow. Isn't this a bit overkill? The GC can't measure square feet and inches like for every other code requirement? Sounds like one of those make-work, full-employment things like NJ's lack of self-save gas pumps.David Thomas Overlooking Cook Inlet in Kenai, Alaska
Thank-you for all your replies.
First off, I am aware of the alarm bells that go off when a layman (i.e. a non-licensed pro) starts dabbling in aesthetics and design, so I am highly sensitive to these concerns.
However, I believe a person can be enthusiastic and diligent with his interest in such matters, including the execution of the ideas that are formed.
This is perhaps where things can go one way or the other that determines the outcome - good, bad or questionable.
At the moment I am feeling more comfortable with seeking help from an engineer for the technical/safety/code issues and hiring specific trades for execution of some of the more challenging or labor intensive details.
I learned long ago not to bite off more then I can chew, no matter how eager I was to get my hands dirty.
With all due respect to the fine services that are offered by architects, this time I would like to have full control over issues that can be highly subjective and intangible and be prepared to live with the results.
Hopefully it will be a satisfying journey.
At some point in the future there may be an opportunity to be a wealthy patron and allow an architect to make a statement.
Unfortunately at the moment this can be lived out only vicariously through magazine articles.
Yeah, any more in our area you need an engineer more than an architect. An engineer has to sign off on the roof design, whereas nothing else requires a signoff in a standard residence.
The way I did it on my big remodel was to measure the existing and get it into CAD drawings, then continue drawing and thinking about it to get it the way I want. Here in LA they won't even check plans without an engineer's wet stamp. So, I took the whole shebang to an engineer, who checked my calcs and drew some more details, then pulled the permit for me. It cost me $2k for the engineer and $2k for the city.
As for an architect, why would I pay somebody to disagree with what I want to do? I already have a wife for that. ;-)
-- J.S.
Not all room additon plans require an Engineer. If you build it strange like they do in Venice,Cal. , you need an Engineer. Typical additon in San Pedro or South LA can get a permit with a homeowner drawn plans if they follow these guidelines
http://www.ci.la.ca.us/LADBS/faq/info%20bulletins/building%20code/IB-P-BC%202002-004%
for a 1 story additon.
I have seen Engineer's who design bridges make a homeowner build his house to carry a train for $20,000 more than normal. A local Engineer who works with the Building Department and local contractors is the one to get. He knows the in and outs, local codes and what is normal for the area.
"I have seen Engineers who design bridges make a homeowner build his house to carry a train for $20,000 more than normal."
A engineer who does this kind of stuff can get himself into trouble...he's violating his code of ethics at least, and may be breaking the law. From the NSPE website:
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. (my emphasis.)
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
I'm a professional (electrical) engineer; I've been asked more than once to design something out of my area of expertise or to sign off on someone else's plans, and I always politely decline - even for something simple or minor it's not worth risking my license over it. The monthly newsletter from my state engineering board always has a list of people who've been fined or had their licenses pulled for doing this kind of thing.
I agree with the others, make sure any engineer you hire is familiar with home construction techniques.
"As for an architect, why would I pay somebody to disagree with what I want to do? I already have a wife for that. ;-)"
ROTFLMAO
That was both very rich and very low, in one fell swoop.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
ah..... sounds like you have a misconception of the entire design process..
first .. an engineer is not trained in architecture and design.. if they have those skills it is not because of their engineer training..
2d... the only time you need an engineer is to determine a solution to specific problem areas in your design... maybey it's a wind load.. or a point load .. or sizing a special beam....
but 99% of residential design is evolutionary... taking what has been tried and true and code accepted and applying it to your residential needs..
hiring an engineer to help in your design is spending money for a service you do not need..
also.. you disparage architects when you say that they will wind up wasting your money designing something to please their ego... maybe some will.. most will not..
here is the way i see the process...
good builders like me are a dime a dozen... bad builders are legion.. too numerous to count..
but a good designer (architect ) is the best money you can spend on your home.. bad builders cannot correct a bad design.. neither can good builders..
if you don't start with a good desing.. all of the engineering in the world will not save it from being a bad house..
i was in one two weeks ago... as a consultant... a drop dead scenic location.. with a huge chalet type structure... it was not only ugly.. it was badly laid out.. adn it was so bad it had been on the market for more than a year.. this is in coastal Rhode Island.. the house was designed by an engineer... and i would have guessed it in a New York minute.. but the prospective buyer told me right off the bat..
my advice to him... spend his first dollars on a good architect.. to take the bones of the structure and try to save it..
my advice to you... find an architect or designer to help you... then hire an engineer for the structural questionsMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike -
Thanks for your comments.
I was hoping not to run into this.
And especially not have my intent misinterpreted.
-------
Re -" first .. an engineer is not trained in architecture and design.. if they have those skills it is not because of their engineer training.."
Not sure if I implied this anywhere in any of my statements.
I was fairly specific about why I want to get an engineer involved.
I'm sure you can also come up with plenty of examples of beautifully designed but questionably engineered so-called architectural masterpieces.
Frank Lloyd Wright has his share of problematic masterpieces that are well-documented.
Don't get me wrong - they are still masterpieces.
------
Re- hiring an engineer to help in your design is spending money for a service you do not need..
Definitely not what I said or intend to do.
---------
Re - also.. you disparage architects when you say that they will wind up wasting your money designing something to please their ego... maybe some will.. most will not..
I am not sure where this is coming from.
I made no such remarks, implied or direct.
I did admit I am not in the socio-economic scale level to afford being a patron to an architect, which is a privilage afforded by only a very small fraction of the population.
---------
This started out basically seeking feedback on folks' experience with engineers' roles in the residential building process.
As for the need to get involved with an architect for good design, I am not convinced this is their exclusive intellectual domain that is totally foreign to good builders or even homeowners with well thought out design criteria.
Some will end up as your coastal rhode island example to bolster the need for architects, which is a very valid point.
However, you can probably come up with examples of well-executed collaborative efforts between homeowners/builders or owner/builder and engineers.
But let me point out I do not dismiss the importance of good design.
However, how that goal is accomplished is ultimately chosen by the customer.
(And millions buy and sell tract homes with good design a non-issue.)
Unfortunately some end up with your "coastal rhode island house."
Others manage this without an architect.
And the fortunate or privilaged, ofcourse, will get to work closely with an architect.
At this point, maybe I might be able to afford an older house that was designed by a local architect as his/her residence, and there are handful of those in our university town.
Some I drool over, and there are others that I consider eyesores.
ah.... perhaps....
my real point is that you shouldn't need an engineer.. not unless you are pushing the envelope.. not for design..
now if you are getting into code questions a visit to your building department should be more help than a visit to an engineer..
the building inspector will point out areas that will require engineering design..
but for the most part.. you seem clever enough to be able to interpret the code..
if you need wind load design.. or seismic design.. or specific engineering calculations .. then yes.. hire an engineer...
or buy a good home builder's time for code review.. he/she will be able to point out traditional solutions.. or point to the areas that will actually require engineering..
it seemed to me that you were substituting the expertise of the engineer for that of the architect.. that is what i was objecting to..
and i certainly have no objections to homeowners designing their own houses.. i just object to homeowners hiring engineers to design their houses..
apparently we are both on the same page.. so i wish you wellMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike -
Glad things got cleared up and I understand you're trying to steer me right, which I appreciate.
Re - "now if you are getting into code questions a visit to your building department should be more help than a visit to an engineer..the building inspector will point out areas that will require engineering design.."
We are fortunate to have a busy but accessible building department in our town and the inspectors have been very helpful whenever details needed to be clarified, which hasn't been very often.
(The town recently adopted the IBC with certain items modified for our locality.)
Yes, they have referred to engineering help for matters such as roofload, etc.
Some details can be worked out to their satisfaction via suppliers who can help spec things on items such as structural components.
In the interest of self-preservation, I should be able to trust my instincts and sensibility to determine when it's time to bring in the pros.
Haphazardly throwing money around and ending up with your "Coastal Rhode Island" example is neither financially feasible nor a mistake I can afford to make.
You may already have more information than you want but one thing that has not been addressed is that it sounds like you are acting as your own general contractor. If this the case and you have a job where you can put in extra time to earn more money then you would be better off doing that and hiring a good G. C. That would solve all of the problems that you mentioned and that have been brought up in discussion. If you still want to be the G.C. remember there is a good reason it is a full time job. A good G.C. not only spends a lot of time overseeing, directing and planning but has a wealth of knowledge gathered from years of experience. I wish you well !
re - A good G.C. not only spends a lot of time overseeing, directing and planning but has a wealth of knowledge gathered from years of experience. I wish you well !
------
Thanks, Woodman.
I am aware of the potential pitfalls of folks trying to be their own GC, including tales of broken marriages that don't survive the ordeal.
But I also know first-hand examples of folks who successfully built rather large and well-designed projects while holding down full-time jobs.
One successful example was approached the way you described.
The GC basically became part of the family, spending many odd hours working out details with the homeowners while the project moved along.
It was a pay as you go deal drawn from a large reserve that was nest-egg'd and the project lasted maybe a bit longer then a year.
And the client was.....an engineering professor !
Well sited beautiful (large) home on a spectacular lot in a country setting, etc etc.
>my advice to you... find an architect or designer to help you... then hire an engineer for the structural questions
And let's emphasize that an architect and a designer are not the same thing. Depending on the tasks, a designer can be an affordable and practical alternative to an architect.
I'm a designer, but not an architect, and can do complete concepts and blueprints in most locales. I work with a structural engineer, but he only addresses the structural aspects. I help determine orientation (for solar gain and views), create renderings, examine traffic flow, work with subs to reflect their preferences for hvac, elec, plumbing, etc. These are tasks that engineers aren't prepared for, and that the typical homeowner wouldn't perhaps have the desire, experience, or tools to address. And the typical designer charges lots less than the typical architect, be/c as a breed we're insecure about not having those pretty initials after our name. <G>
So, just know that there are architects and there are building designers, and if one is not appropriate for you, the other might be.
Most everyone here has stipuilated that it depends on your level of skill. This is not only as a draftsperson but in total design, knowing which way the floor joists run, etc. there are dozens of CAD jockeys who design unbuildable floor plans. This is not only from lack of structurall engineering knowledge, but plumbing runs, lighting, and wiring need to be woven in there as well. if you've been intimately involved in enough residential construction, you already know what I mean. If not, you might be redrawing the plans four or five times to get it right. By then, a pro archy can seem like a bargain.
I draw up plans and have the yard help me with specing LVLs for things that need refinement. For unique engineering that is above my ability as a plain old builder, I fax all the particulars to an engineer who is comfortable working with me. He then sends back a report with scetches showing up to three different ways the problem could be handled to let me choose the method that works best for me, cost and labour wise.
I don't need stamps for permit approval, but I keep the documentation for liability reasons. In your case, I would have to add another step, that of incorporatiing his sketches into the plan and then getting his stamp on the whole shebang. I usually spend about $300 per consult and it might be higher for stamping the whole deal.
I end up with a small disclaimer from him. His report starts out reading, "Given the information you have provided to me on this job...If this information is complete and accurate then..."
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Engineers are untrustworthy slobs!! (Just ask my wife.)
I designed and then drew the prints (used a program called Visio). Anyway, we needed to do a little blasting. The inspector said there are too many holes in the blasted rock beneath the footing area in a few spots, so "you need to dig out a foot or two and add crushed stone". I said, are there any alternatives (the forms were already in place at that point!), and he said "get an structural engineer to certify what ever you want to do". So I hired a guy ($100/hour), and he said "you need to dig out a foot or two and add crushed stone".!
But, the guy spent two hours with me, talking the hole time because he built his own house too, and other reasons, but he was worth his weight in gold. Best $200 bucks on the hole house.
Woodside.
Well it depends on the local code, of course. In New York, single family residences under 1500 square feet did not need any stamps. They still had to be built to code, of course, but the building inspector checked for compliance when he approved the plans. That's one reason why they insist on real plans, not a sketch on a napkin. I say "did" because I think the requirements may have tightened in the last year or so. For plans requiring a stamp, either an architect or an engineer could stamp the plans.
Having said that, you won't get much help from an engineer regarding space design nor aesthetics, but of course you'll pay much less. When I designed my own home (and I'm an engineer myself) I hired a structural and soils engineer to give me some help on the foundation and some structural items. He also reviewed the whole design, gave me drawing advice, and stamped the plans. I could not afford an architect and chose to go without one.
Designing a house is not so easy to do. Lots of houses, even professionally designed tract homes, are actually quite lousy. So, be sure to get lots of people to look over your plans who will be honest with you, including women as well as men, and don't settle on a plan until you really are comfortable with every bit of it.
I've never seen a structural engineer who new anything about efficient layout of HVAC, plumbing or electrical unless they worked for years doing those trades. Get everyone's opinion, so you can make your own informed decision.
Thank you again for everybody's input.
I am grateful the thread didn't turn into smearing any particular profession, especially architects.
When we begin to finalize our plans for our major remodel, we passed them by two architects to validate/check the anticipated final product. They really didn't offer major changes so in the end and stuck with the design we submitted. What that did provide was the confidence that we were very close to a good solution. Money well spent.
Working closely with the city planning dept avoided the wet stamp.
Dean
I didn't read all the 20 some answers. Just the question.
Generally, the way it is done around here; get a designer to draw up the plans, get an engineer to do structural design and provide the required stamp of approval, submit to building dept for their approval. That route costs, maybe 2% of the total project cost. On smaller projects, the builder typically does the design, and that is figured into his fee, however, local municipalities still require a stamp for any job that includes a significant amount of structural work.
Architect route is roughly, maybe, 10%. Of course, arch may offer additional services like on site management and feng shui :-) which would vary the price. IMO, arch are good for unusual projects, "hard lots", and projects that are less $ constrained, etc.
re - Architect route is roughly, maybe, 10%. Of course, arch may offer additional services like on site management and feng shui :-) which would vary the price. IMO, arch are good for unusual projects, "hard lots", and projects that are less $ constrained, etc.
-------
I am all too familiar with these matters, having vicariously lived through my brother who owns a lot overlooking Puget Sound.
The lot still sits empty with a very very expensive site plan and blueprints as well as engineering studies for the sloped lot.
They worked closely with an architect and an engineering firm, but I'm not clear if the two were tied together.
But this is Seattle suburbs, which is nightmarishly expensive to do anything building-wise.
why is your brother's site empty?
re - why is your brother's site empty?
------
Because they stumbled upon a house on a large lot that also has a spectacular view of Puget Sound.
The market got a bit soft in the area so they are just sitting on the other lot.
OK. (I thought that was somehow attributed to an architect's influence).
Not all architects, by the way, design "their design" in spite of your best wishes. Some actually listen, and understand budgets and how to keep from bumping your head on one, and love the challenge of actually satisfying a client with a "working middle class" budget.
Personally, I'm dumbfounded that people with give a realtor 6 percent for any house (more for vacant land) and cringe at paying an architect a similar amount for something that truly fits.
rantmode=0
re - Some actually listen, and understand budgets and how to keep from bumping your head on one, and love the challenge of actually satisfying a client with a "working middle class" budget.
Personally, I'm dumbfounded that people with give a realtor 6 percent for any house (more for vacant land) and cringe at paying an architect a similar amount for something that truly fits.
------
Yes, and we see many good examples of this relationship in homes featured in FH's annual issues.
They manage to squeeze in a few that is (maybe) within reach of the working middle-class.
As for architects, I have no clue whose at fault for them being low in many consumer's priority.
Perhaps it's the profession that should be looked at in the way the public is educated and how well they are perceived.
But that's not for me to determine and I hold no anymosity toward the profession.