Use existing measurements or blueprint?
Hello. Now that I am ready to start doing wall layout for the addition to my home I ran into some questions and need some expert advice.
I will be extending one side of my home, basically keeping the same width of the home and roof line. The architect came out to my home took some measurements and then made up my prints. She has the width of the home at 26′-8″. The actual measurement from outside sole plate to outside sole plate is 26′-5 1/2″, the new slab addition is 26′-6 3/4″ in width.
1. Since I can’t do a layout to 26′-8″ do I just keep to the actual 26′-5 1/2″ and adjust all interior measurements accordingly?
2. Is it normal for existing measurements to be different from those on prints when working with additions?
3. Even if the slab was at the actual 26′-8″ should I have kept to the actual existing sole plate width of 26′-5 1/2″ to make sure the walls were not expanding in width? In other words if the existing walls are 26′-5 1/2″, at the end of the new slab they should still be 26′-5 1/2″ wide, correct?
Thanks
Replies
First thing might be to ask the Archy. Maybe there is a reason for the different dimension.
Me, I've never had a problem with dimensions as neat as 25'-5 1/2" in addition work.
Now, 25'-4 13/16" I might avoid, labeling that as " 25'-5" Nominal--Match Existing " instead.
Short answer for you is that you will wind up framing to the new slab, and making all of the compromises that entails.
It now occurs to me that your existing slab may not be exactly square at the end; it might splay a tad, enough that it's that much wider at the far end of the addition. But, that's a clean guess.
This is just one of those reasons I try to talk people out of exact-match additions. usually a person can match one wall neatly, but two gets dicey. Usually for having run into one assumption or another (like things being parallel, mostly). Does not always work, but, hey, that's life, too.
Thanks CapnMac. I just got off the phone with the archy and she did say it was a estimate since she did not know the actual wall thickness.I guess i'll just have to wing it and make it work out.Thanks Again Capn.
Congrats on getting this far.
Ignore the dimensions. Treat the plans as "showing intent".
What does showing intent mean? It means that the skilled framer will understand that your intent it to extend the existing walls. He will have to make several site adjustments to do that and if you decide to force him to build to some specific dimension, rather than accomplish your intent, you will skewer the project.
If there is a specific dimension that is critical to your project, make that known to the framer.
I would suggest that you select your framer and pay him to set up the batterboards. I would also pay him to double check the foundation prior to pouring the footings/slab.
CapMac is right.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Thanks Jim. The slab is already poured and it is square. I just talked to the architect and she did say it was a close estimate on the width since she did not know the actual wall thickness. She did say to frame to the existing dimensions and adjust accordingly.I am the framer Jim, that's why I have to rely on you guys to bail me out. My wife keeps telling me since you are on here responding to my posts that you have some extra time on your hands to come down to San Marcos and help out,LOL.
It amazes me how she didn't know the true thickness of the walls there are clues all over the place.( door jambs, window jams etc.) Absolutely mind boggling the number of people making a living in certain professions that are just winging it.
Have you ACTUALLY measured and drawn up many plans for additions like this?She certainly could have come closer than she did, but even with standard const and the clues you mention, it is not always possible to know and to be true and exact right out of the box without doing some demo first. walls tend to develope some lean / tilt over time also and all walls existing may not be square anymore than they are plumb.All that calls for site adjustments by the guy with the layout tools.So it is good for a designer to keep in mind some need for the possibility
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Actually I do both ,that is draw and build them. most of the time our additions range in price from 350,000 to 500,000 so i know very well about making the new blend with the old. but if the builder has to do all the work then why do we even pay someone who can't get closer than 8" when he said she even pulled a tape? Let me build it off 8" and see how much he yells about paying me. I'd be the dumbest framer to ever read a tape.but the archy gets paid before the even knows if the plans work or not then gets charged to have them changed because they didn't work, so the inspector will pass it . just my 2 cents.
I didn't read that she was off eight inches. Now I have to go back and read it again. And I already said that she could have done better, but your statement was too absolutist on the other side. It is simply not possible to be always exact within a quarter inch. "She has the width of the home at 26'-8". The actual measurement from outside sole plate to outside sole plate is 26'-5 1/2","Yeah, she was off all of 2-1/2" Looks like she read the tape better than you read the text if you were off eight inches.
And since the guys forming the slab had yet another dimension, it looks like the OP needs to have a class for everyone involved in reading a tape measure
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Edited 7/18/2008 5:08 am ET by Piffin
I stand corrected on the 8" but i've been telling that to her so long i guess it's stuck in my head now. I don't want to go back and remeasure it because it would prob be more like the 2 1/2 you talk about.
An old guy once told me "the blueprint is only a guide" and he was right. It's up to you to lay it out so it works..tubs fit, kitchen cabinets work, plumbing stacks actually come up in walls if already in place, etc.
all print I have seen has been centerline of stud wall
Did you read the boiler plate on the supplied prints?
They basically say that the GC (builder) will verify all measurements, etc., before proceeding.
This means that if the existing footprint is 26' 51/2" wide then the new slab should be the same and square and level is also your baby.
Your slab is already on the ground?
Now, before you start snapping lines, would be a good time to check out square, level and overall length, too. If it's too far out the concrete guys need to come back. You can make a slightly oversized slab work - tying to the existing house can be disguised.
Where's the pics?
Hello Ralph. My prints have no such disclaimer. The legend only shows what existing walls look like, what new walls look like.The new slab is in and is 1-1/4" wider (26'-6 3/4") than the existing slab.I checked length and it is right on. Square is good. Level is good except for one corner. One corner of the existing slab is 1 1/4" lower than the rest of the slab so the slab people had to match it in order to
not have a lip on the floor going into the addition.I can take some pics and post them later.
"2. Is it normal for existing measurements to be different from those on prints when working with additions?"
Not if I did them ;o)Personally, I firmly believe that it is the architect's responsibility to get it right. Estimate, schmestimate.
Jeff
Jeff, I think we all agree that accuracy is important. But, we also have to agree that it's a waste of time and money to spend several thousand dollars doing a precise as built drawing when the goal is to extend the walls as he is doing. A simple statement "extend walls" suffices and sames him lots of dollars. I know I'd appreciate the savings instead of having to pay some archy who was trying to ramp up their billable hours. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Ouch.
Look as long as the architect is drawing plans anyway, they should reflect existing conditions, especially key dimensions like framing out-out and particularly if there are only a few key dimensions to take (like framing out-out). Not being able to figure that out from existing conditions is not knowing how buildings go together (as Mike Roop points out).
Jeff
Edited 7/17/2008 4:43 pm ET by Jeff_Clarke
It's not that simple. Someone already mentioned the out of parallel condition that is quite possible. Does the archy set up strings to pull the lines parallel to verify the optimum size out at the farthest point from the building? Or, do they stubbornly decide that the far end of the building shall be the exact same size as the existing end. That kind of "non-negotiable" thinking leads to unsightly bends in the frieze, fascia and other sightlines. Most of us experienced contractors framers will ignore the dimensions on a residential remodel and "blend" the new work into the old. I'd probably check the dimensions just to understand the differences and mentally plan for the framing adjustments but I wouldn't build the end dimensions to whatever the archy stated just because he spent 30 hours measuring for it. In the end, the homeowners are going to be looking down the frieze and soffit system and asking me why it's crooked. When I'm done, it will be straight but our measurements might not jive. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
You make a good point, and in more complex work hopefully there is communication with the architect about what will need to change for something like an out-of-square or out-of-level condition. The homeowners will be happy with straight soffits but may not be too happy if the garage door RO isn't held - of course that's tongue-in-cheek but there are plenty of cases where ignoring dimensions results in washers and dryers not fitting, owner's furniture/rugs can't fit and the like.
Jeff
Jeff he answered that in his first post when he said to find out critical dimensions.<G>
Does the archy set up strings to pull the lines parallel to verify the optimum size out at the farthest point from the building? Or, do they stubbornly decide that the far end of the building shall be the exact same size as the existing end. That kind of "non-negotiable" thinking leads to unsightly bends in the frieze, fascia and other sightlines
I've been to both side of this, and the archy side is usually worse.
Why?
Well, I get to show up while all of the landsacping is intact, any hidden conditions inside are just that; oh and usually having budgeted by a boss who has only assigned 15 minutes of billable to a 6 manhour job.
You show up as GC, and well, you get to rip out the overgrown holly, maybe even lay things out with a laser so you can statr parallel to the wall facing the street. You probably have an extra hand to hammer in a stake on a big enough 3-4-5 triangle to tape out a good enough stake for the foundation crew (even the ones who think a 2x6 form board equals ±1/4" <g>)
It's my contention that one of the hardest things to do well to existing homes is to "just extend out exactly what is there." Color matching the roof, knuckles in fascia and trim, and so on. Give me a gable, or a dogbone end any day of the week. Either side of the work, design or building.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Me too! I try to conceptualize a detail at the junction or a change in direction.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>> Personally, I firmly believe that it is the architect's responsibility to get it right.<<
I agree.
I am currently invloved in a project where the archy has missed a critical dimension. This is not my fight, it will be solved before my part of the project begins.
Circa 1780 home in nearby town. The home is brick, two stories and is shaped like an "L".
Archy drew plans for a one story addition inside of the notch of the L. Essentially a flat roofed structure. Nice looking plans and concept.
Plan elevations are all based on one note: "Finish floor to be flush with top of existing stone threshold."
The long side of the addition joins with the wall which forms the short leg of the "L" - there are two existing, 2nd floor, windows in that wall along with the doorway that has the now famous "existing stone threshold".
Plan is very specific - 9-7/8" LPI floor joists, 3/4" Advantech subfloor, 3/4" reclaimed heart pine flooring, 9' interior ceiling, 2x12 ceiling joists, 5/8" plywood roof deck pitched 1/4" / foot away from the existing structure, EPDM roof covering.........
Anyhow the excavator, mason, framer all followed the benchmark for elevation - came within about 1/4" of the spec - stone can be raised a bit so it will work out fine.
9' wall gets framed and stood - "we got enough space between that wall top and the windows?" - 2x12 + 3-1/2" wedge for slope + 5/8" roof deck ----- oops seems those existing windows are too low - by 6" or so.
Solution - remove windows, add 3 or so courses of brick, buy new smaller windows and install, fix interior walls, trim & paint.
Everbody knows who goofed and if there are any doubts a tape measure will quickly reveal the party - of course the current fight is "who pays for additional work (by mason and carp) and the new windows."
HO has not paid the archy in full but is current - my personal opinion is the archy is at fault, back charge his remaining bill for the additional work / materials. But, I'm keeping my mouth shut.
No disclaimer on plans re: confirming dimensions.
Jim Never underestimate the value of a sharp pencil or good light.
Now that's a classic - if in a designated historic district, the review committee might deny changing the windows! Then what would you do?
A simple building section would have taken care of that issue.Jeff
Edited 7/17/2008 5:50 pm ET by Jeff_Clarke
>>if in a designated historic district,....<<
It is.
Luckily, the town's historic commission rules are much more lenient on the back side of the homes which are "not visible from the street". Whewwww!
It'll be fun to watch this develop.
JimNever underestimate the value of a sharp pencil or good light.
"9' wall gets framed and stood - "we got enough space between that wall top and the windows?" - 2x12 + 3-1/2" wedge for slope + 5/8" roof deck ----- oops seems those existing windows are too low - by 6" or so."It probably would have been a good idea to do the calcs BEFORE the wall was framed? I never understood why everyone can figure things out after the wall is standing but it's too hard before it's built and standing. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
>>It probably would have been a good idea to do the calcs BEFORE the wall was framed?<<
Agreed - like I said, this is not my piece of the project.
In this case the archy specced seemingly everything - including the windows (manufacturer, model, size, R.O.'s), exterior doors with transom lights - windows and doors will just fit into 9' walls with the specified / required headers. Windows are just "short" enough to go into a 9' wall without tempered glass.
The framer ordered the windows and doors before the footings were poured.
Seems the archy did everything except get the correct elevations for the existing house features. Or perhaps, add his own elevations and compare the sum to existing elevations.
I think MikeRoop nailed it in his post - paraphrased >> but the archy gets paid before he knows if the plans work or not, then gets to charge to change the plans if they don't work. <<
At least, in this case, the archy has not been fully paid.
I went back and looked at my copy of the plans, this critical dimension never appears on the plans, likewise the total finished elevation of the addition does not appear anywhere - this tends to make me think that the archy "####-u-me-d" something about that dimension. Or, could not read his tape, or wrote it down wrong in his notes, or ..........
Likewise, the excavator, mason and framer all "####-u-me-d" the archy had it right and charged ahead.
Glad it is not my fight - I'm still watching and keeping my mouth shut.
JimNever underestimate the value of a sharp pencil or good light.
Here...copy and paste this onto your plans BUILDING CONTRACTOR/HOME OWNER
TO REVIEW AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS,
SPECS, AND CONNECTIONS BEFORE
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
hey, man, there's a hair on my plans !
"hey, man, there's a hair on my plans !"
Mike I keep tellin' ya it's OK to take a hair off here and there .... ;o)Jeff
DOH!!! Must have been on the scanner.
1. Since I can't do a layout to 26'-8" do I just keep to the actual 26'-5 1/2" and adjust all interior measurements accordingly?
Always match the exact dimension of the house if you are continuing the existing walls. If your existing house is sheathed with 3/4" and your sheathing with 1/2", you can stick the framing past each side of the existing walls 1/4" and pack the inside out later. It's cheaper than sheathing with 3/4".
2. Is it normal for existing measurements to be different from those on prints when working with additions?
Yes it is. All the plans I get for additions matching existing wall widths wil say + - next to the dimensions.
3. Even if the slab was at the actual 26'-8" should I have kept to the actual existing sole plate width of 26'-5 1/2" to make sure the walls were not expanding in width? In other words if the existing walls are 26'-5 1/2", at the end of the new slab they should still be 26'-5 1/2" wide, correct?
Yes, you should've opened up both corners of the existing house and exposed the wall so that you make the foundation match. Every addition I do, I make sure the walls are opened up, exposed and the top of the existing floor joists are exposed. The masons have to go the the top of the joists and measure down and they have to follow the outside of the existing walls. If I pull up to an addition and the existing house isn't opened, 100% of the time the foundation is wrong.
Thanks for the info. Joe. Well I feel better then, I yanked off the existing siding and took the outside to outside dim. and used that as my width.The slab looks to be good, it is square and level and the correct dimensions.Looks like i'll have to adjust for the dimensions that are on the prints to the actual ones.
usually ...
the only guy that can actually read a tape ...
is the guy who's actually gonna do the work.
that goes for archy's and designers of all sorts.
Jeff
Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
usually ... the only guy that can actually read a tape ... is the guy who's actually gonna do the work.
that goes for archy's and designers of all sorts.
Jeff - you're associating with all the wrong people lol - ;o) I even know what the black diamonds are for ....
Jeff
He was thinking of you when he qualified his statement with the word "usually". Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Black diamonds where? are they like black helecopters?<G>
Black diamonds?
They are part of a code system used on ski trails - a single black diamond translates to "expert" rating for that trail.
Also seen - double black diamonds - translation: "Holy %@&!", they expect me to ski on this? There's no slope here, just a cliff! Maybe, I should just jump now and die quickly!"
About the time you form and begin to digest these thoughts, a 12 YO will call out - "On your left!" and pass you, already doing about 35 mph while singing along with her i-pod and casually adjusting her ear muffs.
Don't ask how I know but dat's what black diamonds are. :-)
Jim
Never underestimate the value of a sharp pencil or good light.
Thanks, now we both know. Haven't been skiing since 1973, didn't remember or didn't want to!
ahh ....
all U office types think they get it all right!
in truth ... working with the theory that the measurements ain't gonna be right .... is the only way to stay sane. When they are ... it's like a bonus.
same deal with plumb, level and square ... I go in thinking that ain't gonna happen ... and sometimes I'm pleasantly suprised.
years ago in trade school ... we started the framing portion. We were supposed to start with block laying and work off our own blocks. For some reason we did things backwards ... so we started on previously build blocks.
first 5 minutes of class ... instructor says "Go" ... I say to my partner, let's square it up first ... and throw in ... "If I didn't build it, it ain't square" ...
that's a line my Dad used all the time ... not to cut down the guy that came before ...
but to get it in my head ... unless U know for sure ... check ... and it's probably not 100% right.
So ... I throw that out ... the instructor comes over all pissed ...
"I built that AND I know it's square ... get started!"
My work partner ... didn't catch that part ... just finished check diagonals ...
Yells back ... "Yup ... it's crooked!"
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
That's pretty bad when your instructor faults you for taking two minutes to check if something is square.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
yeah ... he was the "hurry up and GO" guy.
learned real quick to not put much faith in his lesson plans.
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
If I was the instructor, I'd have intentionally built the block crooked or out of square just to explain how to adjust the framing. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
If it gets too hair raising, walk away, grab some cold ones and a tube and go jump in the Blanco ........... and deal with it later. ;)
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke