So, Kris and I were back at BCA this evening, going over two modified options: one is a derivative of Option 2 (with the external stair) from way back, and the other is a derivative of Option 5. In both cases, we opted to add an extension on the back (170SF and 140SF respectively). We only had an hour to go through the options (I had another meeting this evening), and feeling pressured, we opted to get back to them later tonight.
In the end, we've come down on the derivative of Option 5 (once it's redrawn I'll post it for people). Basically it involves three zones from front to back. The first zone (front of the house, south end) is a threshold with a couple of stairs down to the kitchen, an internal staircase at the front of the house (with storage and mechanical under the stairs), as well as a closet. The middle zone has the kitchen and a full bathroom (with shower). Lastly, the end zone (kind of like the ring of that) is the dining/living space (now extended by an additional 8 feet at the back) with a full set of folding glass doors across the back (roughly 14-16') that opens to the backyard and a patio. The upstairs largely maintains the current layout, but has the option of putting in an upper level deck over the new extension which could be really nice later on. The whole thing takes the liveable space to around 1350SF plus another 150 of deck area.
The external stair option did have a lot going for it - it gave us probably an additional 150SF of liveable space (while only being an additional 105SF in actual building), it created a interesting set of perspectives, and it moved the downstairs bathroom to a more private location. Nevertheless, we both decided to go against the recommendations of the architects and opted against the external stair option in the end for a series of reasons:
1) It cost more (at least $15K more)
2) You would have to walk through the entire house to get the stairs and go up
3) It made both of the living spaces at the back of the house (on both levels), whereas on the plan we've opted for one is at the back, and the other at the front.
4) It put the master bedroom at the sunny (south) end of the house (vs. the office/guest bedroom)
...and most importantly...
5) It diminished the expansive view/walkout nature of the back which both Kris and I were set on.
So, with a layout in place, we're on to the next steps of detailing the plan and getting a structural engineer into the mix (whoo hoo).
In other research, I'm coming back to the use of Structural Insulated Panels (or SIPs for short). These are basically "pre-built" walls that are two sheets of plywood with Styrofoam in the middle (crudely put). Why use SIPs? Well, they've got a bunch of pluses:
- They're precision cut and so there's minimal waste generated
- They're created off site, so there's no mess on site
- There's no framing so they go up super-fast relative to normal framing (days vs. weeks)
- They can squeeze in pretty high R-values (insulation to non-building geeks) so I can get about R-36 from a 10" wall. Conversely, while I can get about R-30 if I used 2*6 studs with spray foam, the cost is higher, and I would need to go to about 8" (non-traditional) anyhow to get upwards of R-36.
I've been reading about them in a number of the green building books I've been pouring over, and they seem to be the way to go if you can swing it...so we'll see (I've got two calls tomorrow to find out more on them), but I'm hopeful.
Aside from that, also have a meeting with another guy who's building a passive house on Thursday, so that should be useful for me as well. Seems like Vancouver is emerging as a mini-hub for passive house design, which is cool.
That's all for tonight!
No comments:
Post a Comment