Hi all – I’m in the process of planning a gut / rehab on an older (1920s) house I bought recently. There is an architect engaged (and she will be reading this thread, so be on your best behavior!). I’ll have a million questions before this is over, but right now we’re thinking about the roof design. My real hope is to get a steel-cage death match going between BossHog and DieselPig!
What started as a nice bungalow is now, after many ill-conceived additions, an ugly, rambling one-story house with the oddest looking roof I’ve ever seen (I attached a photo which really doesn’t convey how ugly it is).
We want to add more square footage by going up. We’re also adding a 2-car garage. My wife and I like the idea of tearing off ALL of the existing roof and starting over, rather than trying to blend something in with any part of the existing house. We’re partial towards hip roofs, so I made a model to show what we want – we think that this will give us the square footage we need on the second level. I’ve attached a photo of the model – don’t laugh, I know it’s crude – but it conveys the idea (I hope). Note that I only show one dormer – we’re actually thinking of 5 in total.
I have this (naive) notion that we could sent the plans to a truss company and someone like Boss could crank it through the computer and send back a truckload of trusses that could be craned in and assembled. On the other hand, this is a fairly complex roof, and the dormers might make trusses impossible, so stick building would be the way to go.
My question – which method is best for this application, and just how hard is this roof going to be to build (regardless of which method)?
Replies
Bill,
Seems to me your would be better off using a combination of truss and stick, but lets wait for The Boss to chime in.
WSJ
modified hip-mansard with a flying soffet and facia? i dont know who must hate you more, painters or roofers. i dont have anything positive to contribute, but i just had to stop in and agree with you about the existing roof.
Looking carefully behind the "Y" of the big tree, I think maybe the existing isn't so much a poor man's mansard as a gambrel with a disproportionate fascia and overhang. Perhaps this could be very much improved with a lot less work. All it might take is an anti-fascia-ist gambrelization. It would depend on how the upper part's rafters attach to the lower part at the slope change.
-- J.S.
Bovine battle ??? What do cows have to do with this? Are ya gonna have a rooftop bordello or something?
I opened the smaller attachment. But I ain't gonna touch that big one. Don't want to wait a half hour for it to download.
Ther's no way I could tell from your model if it could be trussed or not. The thing certainly is complicated. But I do stuff like that every day.
To give you an answer, I'd have to know where you had bearing below, dimensions, and a lot of stuff like that. Basically I'd have to have the blueprint.
Even with trusses, there would be a fair amount of overframing. There's almost no (practical) way to build every one of those angles into the trusses.
BTW - I'd love to tell Dieselpig to "stick it". But I'm afraid he might take it the wrong way.
(-:
I suspect he meant "porcine battle"
Attached a smaller version of his pic.
Guess I'm in the minority in liking SIMPLE roofs.
jt8
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -- Ronald Reagan
I suspect he meant "porcine battle"
What the heck does "porcine battle" mean ???
Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not been able to answer... the great question that has never been answered:
What does a woman want? [Sigmund Freud]
you be the one w/ the beautiful ipe front porch?
can't help but see stick frame all over that roof
not going to go back to your model but can't help but think maybe a hip or two less ( carry ridge line down farther ) and you would not lose anything w/ your five dormer approach / very involved structure but you will be rewarded
also you've thrown this out "there" and not having an appreciation of future garage footprint and / or lot layout ( or your mother in law status ) I see a wing coming out perpendicular to front to back of house going over present driveway providing open breezeway to two car garage w/ total footprint providing living space over breezeway garage w/ hip and dormers front and back - could even put garage doors ( or door ) on back to give access to backyard or 3rd vehicle parking
cottage doors w/ lights close to those lights above on the dormer window
hope the best for your project
looked at the model again and maybe you cannot eliminate a hip
what is that dangling participle on the left of your model - stepped down a hair?
maybe that is your garage?
Edited 11/9/2005 2:46 pm ET by johnharkins
What the heck does "porcine battle" mean ???
Procine is to swine as bovine is to cattle. The original poster was trying to stir something up between BossHog and dieselpig. Porcine battle (assuming I'm spelling it correctly).
jt8
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -- Ronald Reagan
Edited 11/9/2005 2:45 pm by JohnT8
O.K. - I may be slow, but I catch on eventually.
Show me a man who thinks the same at 50 as he did at 20, and I'll show you a man who's wasted 30 years of his life. [Muhammad Ali]
Bovine battle ???
I was hoping to see a picture of a couple cows up on a roof battling with light-sabers.
Stacy's mom has got it going on.
Bill: that model is a piece of shi . . .
Kidding! Just kiddin'. Wish more clients got into their projects like that. Congratulations on figuring out those roof lines (the x-acto must not have taken too much skin off, if you were able to type).
Question: you mentioned adding a second floor. Wouldn't you get more square footage by not hipping the roof and just using a simple ridge? Also, you mentioned a garage. The existing driveway is on the right (in the photo), but didn't see anything in the model. Are you relocating the driveway too?
Just some questions for clarification (and hope your dormers are a little smaller than what was on the model . . .)
first of all, you're wrong. your existing roof is a dog and the picture says so.
this isn't a hard roof to frame stick. with an existing house to protect, your decision to stick vs. truss may come down to which is the method which will get you dried in the fastest. this is determined by a number of factors including your crew size, framing skills, crane access, etc.
i've gotten boned on two truss jobs with incorrect trusses on hip roofs. fortunately, both were new construction. if it had happened in a situation like yours, it would have been a nightmare.
sorry Boss, I'm sure it never happens to you.....
carpenter in transition
"sorry Boss, I'm sure it never happens to you....."
Are you kidding ???
The first thing they teach you in truss design school is how to screw up roofs and piss off customers.
(-:
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -- Voltaire (1764)
There is a lot I can't see and know from that, but I have a couple comments for consideration
See the porch roof on the near side-
In the model, you show that going back to a hip on that end instead of the gable with a skirt. That is a bad idea. Mike Smith and I are always preaching about how good roof design eliminates the need for gutters/eavestroughs. By cahnging from gable to hip right over that entry door, you dump water right over the door. If you are in a winter climate, that means ice to deal with in a dangerous location, or gutters to maintain and keep trash and ice out of.
The mansard cap on top is an abomination. It is possible to keep a decent profile and have terminus of a flat roof up there with EPDM.
Framing should probably be stick IMO, but I am prejudiuced that way anyhow.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Something to consider, which hasn't been mentioned yet-
When you're working on an existing house, especially one that's over 80 y/o, there's a good possibility that something's out of square/level/plumb. Try as you might to correct it with the new floor/wall framing, it's not always possible to get everything true enough for a truss roof to work well- there's not much "play" in a truss system to compensate for these types of problems. It's also somewhat difficult to get precise enough measurements of the existing structure to get the trusses fabbed to the proper dimension.
Given all that, and the complexity of the roof, I'd lean toward stick-framing it. You've then got the ability to "adjust" some dimensions (either totally, or gradually as the existing conditions change) to get everything to fit right. Besides, as Boss said, the roof as designed would have a ton of over-framing anyway with trusses.
Even the fabled Dean Johnson of "Hometime" fame ( I still think Hometime's the best of all the home improvement shows out there, though some of the faked "husband/wife" stuff gets a little corny) ran into this problem in one of his addition projects. The existing framing was measured wrong, and the trusses didn't go in as designed. They made a few mods to the framing to get everything to look right, but it took some finesse. They made a point of the problem on the show to explain some of the problems that may occcur during renos/additions.
Bob
That roof on your model is gonna leak - BIG TIME!!! :-)
Seriously though, what I see on the model is a "story and a half". It also looks to me that repalcing all that roof is gonna get you what? - 800 sq ft? My first guess would be to take the main house up a full 2 stories... Otherwise, your square footage gained will end up being $250 or $300 a sq ft and the rooms you gain will have minimal windows.
At any rate, in new construction, a "story and a half" like your model is would almost certainly be stick framed. (I'm not a remodeler). Also I think the above comment about nothign being square on the existing house has a lot of merrit. Especially since it has been added onto several times. Age has nothing to do with it though... 3 years ago I finished off an "attic room" on a $700k house that was about 3 years old - the space I started with was out of square 2.5" in 8'!!!
Wow - Lot's of great input!
Yes, I meant Porcine, not Bovine (BossHog and dieselpig)... a lame attempt at humor, ruined by my ignorance of farm animals ...
The proposed garage is in the model, at the rear (where the dormer is attached). I would much prefer to put it on the side, right on top of the existing driveway, and we are still considering that, but there is a giant tree (out of the view of the photo) that I don't want to remove or injure. JohnHarkins, the architect is gonna love you - she wants a breezeway too (and has pretty much talked me into it).
I'm so glad that there is agreement that the existing roof is butt-ugly. I was worried that someone would weigh in and tell me I was desecrating some rare example of some important period in New England architecture. Whew. But I do like JohnSprung's new term - "anti-fascia-ist gambrelization' - kinda rolls off the tongue!
Piffin (and Mike Smith) - I'm sold on the 'no gutters' approach - the architect and I have already agreed on that - although I wanted to go all-hip and put a couple short sections of gutters over the doors. But you're right - if I leave the roof detail the way it is over the porch, I don't need them there. Elsewhere, the plan is big overhangs and a shallow 'french drain' to carry the water away (NOT connected to the footing drains).
JohnHarkins - the smaller structure on the left is the kitchen / laundry room wing. BTW, thanks for the compliment on the Ipe porch - yes, that's me.
The dormer size, and for the matter, the roof pitch, is in the hands of the architect. The model was just a rough cut so my wife and I could discuss ideas - the architect will make it look right. The dormer in the model is way too large, mostly because my fat fingers couldn't work with smaller pieces of cardboard!
Plumb / level - no need to speculate here - it's a disaster. I've drawn a topo map of the living room floor - there's something like 4-6" variation in height! Interior doors are racked to the point that they won't close at all. This is one of the reasons I thought it would be easier to remove the entire existing roof - it will simplify the process of squaring and leveling the existing structure. BTW, the house will be completely vacant during the construction, and there is very little to protect during the process - I don't think I can salvage the interior walls or floors.
Now back to the roof design. Many of the points raised here were raised by the architect too - specifically, this is a lot of expense for a minimimal gain in square footage. She drew several versions where there is a full 2nd story over one wing of the house, with a more conventional roof. In that scenario, the living room section (front of the photo, where the chimney is) would not have a second floor, but the upper section of the roof would be flattened (EPDM?) and the fascia would be removed (as Piffin and others suggested). My main objection to this approach is that the house still looks like a hodge-podge, when what I want is to integrate the various wings and get a more unified look. But I need to go back and look at that version. The 1 1/2 story approach appeals to me too - with Icynene insulation (or equiv) I can get nice volume in all the rooms and probably have a very energy efficient house that will seem more tucked into the lot. The existing house is about 1600 square feet, and adding 800 more is about right for what I want to do. We're trying to avoid cramming a McMansion into a neighborhood of very charming, cottage-y homes.
Ironically, stick vs truss seems to be the least important part of this conversation ...
Thanks as always for the great insights ... Bill.
Good Luck with the project Mr. W. I hope your attempts are not feeble at obtaining what you want :)
You are to hip. Hip roofs look better on simple roofs with uncomplicated lines. The sheer quantity of plane changes would lend itself to traditional gable construction on your house.
If it were mine, I would stick-frame it, one section at a time (to minimize exposure).
keep everyone updated on your progress(good post) :)
> - there's something like 4-6" variation in height! .... - I don't think I can salvage the interior walls or floors.
That sounds like you're close to a complete demo and new construction. Sometimes it's easier and cheaper that way. Remodeling is harder than new construction, because you have to work with that damn house in the way.
Around here, there are a lot of jobs that are almost complete demos, but they leave a wall or two. The reason is that they can keep the original footprint. New construction would lose a lot of buildable area to zoning setbacks that have been imposed since the neighborhood was originally built.
-- J.S.
John - You're absolutely right, and I haven't eliminated the option of complete demolition (although I would have to keep a wall or two because I am violating current set-back rqmnts).
hey , bill the important thing is to have fun
now .. just so you won't be disappointed...
i really like the old gal
View Image
i get the feeling that if the tree were gone and the wires were underground.. this might be a little gem..
it doesn't show up in this smaller version, but the eaves are all canoed ( they change pitch with a curve )..
got any more pics from different angles ?
edit:
just went back and looked at the bigger pic again.. the upper pithces look like they're about 5/12
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 11/11/2005 7:37 pm ET by MikeSmith