Two good meetings yesterday, firstly with Ty-afal, then with Knott the architect. Ty-afal's build technique sounded convincing with timber frame made airtight and layers of insulation applied, underfloor heating set directly into the slab and no heating upstairs because its not needed (!), but I hope when we were talking a ballpark figure of £1k per square metre that was a total build price. The goalposts got shifted by counsel against SIPs (which I was getting, and still am, quite keen on) on the grounds that nobody knows how they're going to perform over time. We've asked for a visit to a Ty-afal-built house which should be a future date for the diary.
Knott has his own views on SIPs and timber frame, whilst not being particularly pro- or anti- (apart from sound travelling too easily around timber frame houses) he couldn't see why we wouldn't want to lay a great big slab of concrete down and build out of block with insulation applied to the outside.
We went through our briefing pack whilst the Girl drew and coloured and the Boy fidgeted. We discussed some of the key requirements, issues over massing, and the fact that the budget we quoted wouldn't stretch to what we're proposing. I'm not sure whether we got the message across that we don't just want to be able to call the house 'architect designed', but that it should be obvious when you drive up to it and walk into it. We want something that's better and different from the norm. So when Knott at one stage tested how we felt if we had a design with four bedrooms, one at each corner, on the top floor rather than the double height space and galleried games area that I'd sketched I felt like saying that I didn't really need an architect to deliver that.
Next step is for me to put my plans into the Council as a pre-application to inform Knott's thinking. At the moment I'm yet to see the difference between seven years professional training and a £30 software package, but I'm keeping an open mind. The good lady wife remains optimistic, whereas I merely remain hopeful - I think there's a subtle difference.
Knott has his own views on SIPs and timber frame, whilst not being particularly pro- or anti- (apart from sound travelling too easily around timber frame houses) he couldn't see why we wouldn't want to lay a great big slab of concrete down and build out of block with insulation applied to the outside.
We went through our briefing pack whilst the Girl drew and coloured and the Boy fidgeted. We discussed some of the key requirements, issues over massing, and the fact that the budget we quoted wouldn't stretch to what we're proposing. I'm not sure whether we got the message across that we don't just want to be able to call the house 'architect designed', but that it should be obvious when you drive up to it and walk into it. We want something that's better and different from the norm. So when Knott at one stage tested how we felt if we had a design with four bedrooms, one at each corner, on the top floor rather than the double height space and galleried games area that I'd sketched I felt like saying that I didn't really need an architect to deliver that.
Next step is for me to put my plans into the Council as a pre-application to inform Knott's thinking. At the moment I'm yet to see the difference between seven years professional training and a £30 software package, but I'm keeping an open mind. The good lady wife remains optimistic, whereas I merely remain hopeful - I think there's a subtle difference.
As our house was architect designed, and features a double height space and galleried games area, I can see where you're coming from. Whether it's obvious when you drive up to it, I'm not sure as the planners had a lot to say about suitable form and layout. Definitely worth all the effort for the reward you get every day living in it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the anti-SIPs comments - they've been around a lot longer than people assume.