What to Build and Who to Build it? Pt. 2

Editorial Rating: Reader Rating: ( 0 votes)

Click to change your reader rating: (not rated)   worthless bad average good great

In our last installment, tres_arboles summarized the reasons why our first construction idea, the cedar kit chalet home, bit the dust. Even so, we remained motivated by the chalet concept because of the way most chalet designs emphasize open and combined public spaces of the house, while tucking away the private spaces in small, cabin-esque bedrooms. While focusing on chalets, we continued to investigate alternatives to conventional, on-site, stick frame construction. While doing plentiful internet research, I discovered two Puget Sound builders featuring unique off-site construction processes, for a variety of floor plans (including some chalet offerings). I found each of these techniques curious, yet intriguing. First, I found Timberland Homes, a Washington State company that has devised a method for stick framing houses at their local facilities, then cutting them into modules that can be shipped by flatbed truck or barge to anywhere from Alaska to Oregon. Their range of floor plans are concise yet very conventional ranches and chalets, but they also marketed price points below $100 a square foot for the houses shipped, exclusive of the land and site development costs. From a price standpoint, we were in the ballpark. I have to admit, I was and remain leery of the idea of building a house then cutting it into pieces, especially now that I have seen great and elegant examples of modular prefabrication work so well (see, for example, Sara Sage’s Livemodern Blog for an example of modern modular designed by Greg LaVardera, and Ami McElroy’s Livemodern Blog for her experience with the Glidehouse). But I had yet to find Livemodern, and wasn’t yet familiar with the Greg’s stock plans or the Glidehouse, so I had to check these guys out. The quality of the Timberland Homes construction is superb, easily matching the quality of houses built on site. They boast some construction efficiencies avoiding the extent of waste generated by site-building. Curiously, they also claim to use beefier construction techniques to enable the house pieces to travel well after cutting. I doubt, therefore, that this construction technique can be characterized as green. The fixtures are unspectacular but even the basic specifications are “nice” including all 2x6 framing, tile, carpet, and wood flooring, making these homes a good value. Unfortunately, like the Cedar Home outfits, Timberland doesn’t offer general contracting except for an additional fee, and then only act as a middleman, hiring a GC to run all the site work and collecting a fee in addition to the on-site GC’s fee. I could save money by GC-ing the site work myself, but this would either be stressful beyond belief (for me) or at best very difficult for me to oversee. No sale. Then, while wandering around the internet, running searches for panel-based construction (I was starting to get interested in things like SIPs), I found Armstrong Homes. Armstrong offers a building “system” that involves construction of houses by panels built in their enclosed Washington State facility, shipped by flatbed, then crane erected on site. After erection of the dryed-in shell, the purchaser has the option of taking the project over or staying with Armstrong’s sub-trades and superintendent through the final inspection. Both options would suit the tres_arboles family. We are lucky to have three exceptionally skilled tradesmen in our family, including a licensed electrician and a superb finish carpenter who had previously GC-ed an absolutely bombproof garage at our last house. On the other hand, Armstrong was the first of the builders I interviewed that offered authentic general contracting, with a crew of full time construction superintendents, one of whom would be personally responsible for our project. Furthermore, Armstrong works with a regular group of sub trades for all of their turnkey projects. Although this might mean a somewhat longer than average construction schedule for our house (being on the fringe of their geographic service area), the time saved on the site work, framing, windows/doors, and roof using their system would make the time element a wash. (Considering we would not be time-pressured to occupy, I’m not concerned about time as a threshold matter anyways.) Visiting Armstrong was actually pretty fun as their trades and superintendents were willing to stop through the sales office, answer questions, complement the information the sales rep provided. While their construction spec might make the highbrow among you blanch (carpet and vinyl flooring, laminate counters and stock fixtures, vinyl-framed windows) their construction quality is tight and the package is flexible. Especially intriguing is their offer to look at any construction proposal for compatibility with their system (more on this in a forthcoming entry). Finally, their price point for a dryed-in shell (exclusive only of land cost) is presently about $40 a square foot, and for a completed house (exclusive of land) is presently running about $95 to $115 a square foot. Can you say “Ballpark?” tres_arboles says, “In the game!” Next: “Chalet? We don’t need no stinkin’ chalet!”