At a time of dramatically increased real estate and construction costs, it is hard for both owners and architects not to reduce their expectations with regard to both aspiring to and achieving a strong architectural vision in residential construction today, as Rudolf Schindler, Albert Frey or Richard Neutra accomplished in their day, or Frank Gehry and Morphosis did early in their careers. With the cost of both steel and wood (for studs and plywood) skyrocketing, the use of inexpensive materials is no longer enough to keep things affordable. The recent emphasis on home-as-lifestyle instead of home-as-form may be one symptom of this paradox. In such a climate, this project is intended to serve as a model and method by which architecture can still be achievable, if not affordable through a series of design strategies whose aim is to more compactly but creatively accommodate the ordinary residential program, in order to allocate and preserve a sufficient portion of the budget to create of strong overall architectural statement and experience.

I found this project recently posted @ MOCOLOCO.com (http://mocoloco.com/archives/cat_architecture.php). I find it hard to believe how heavily detailed this project is that it resulted in a cost savings for the client.

Roger Sherman's 3-in-1 House

Another View -

Interior Shot

I am wondering if anyone has had experience with working with "cheaper" materials to pull off modern detailing to save cost to clients. If so, what materials have you used?

Anything you can scavenge! I've got a friend doing some redwood T&G siding on a very pristine house for a client. The remnants he is salvaging for his own tiny addition on to his home. That is a cheap alternative for a beautiful material.

I've used plywood with a specific coating on it to reduce splintering, spilling, etc. Haybale construction is a good way to think as well.

I've been reading more on Mockbee's Rural Studio for info on creativity with a cheap budget; I am working with a county fair here in Nebraska for alternative ideas and creative solutions with no budget.

tr

Its hard to evaluate that project without any numbers to back up the idea. Construction cost in California are over the top, and an idea of what is affordable there will not be congruous with other locations.

Looking at the photos I agree - its a relatively difficult hillside site compounded by California's seismic hazard issues. There is a high number of windows with aluminum frames which by all accounts remain more expensive than other options such as wood or vinyl. The form of the house is relatively unusual with the upper wall overhanging the lower wall which again complicates the framing. On the interior un-adorned plywood appears like a gesture towards a compromise of budget, but my experience again is always that even plywood sheathing in its roughest spec is more expensive than interior gypsum board. I'm not seeing the value statement here, however its a nice house - I like it.

The project above was more about sparking my interest in using alternate materials in building. Usually when I think of projects built with innovative materials it would be much different looking then this. I find what you mention also in that quite often when I try to detail projects with "cheaper" materials it works out to be more expensive because they are not typical details in which builders are custom to. Your point about plywood sheathing on interior walls is right on. I too have tried that to save money, and it worked out that standard sheetrock was cheaper in the long run. I cannot see what they did to save money.

Our office has used Quansit Huts in the past to enclose space cheaply. A company called STEELMASTER (http://www.steelmasterusa.com/) in the United States offers these systems for many different uses. The tough part about these systems is cutting windows into the side walls, and being able to provide flashing at the corrugated structural arches.

The project below uses the sytem, but is not our work.

I would have to agree with Greg here. Perhaps saving 50k on a 400k house is a savings but if its still $300 per sf then whats the relative economy.. plus anyone in CA who can qualify for 350k has to have a combined income of over 100k per year to make the 2500 dollar monthly payment not including Utilities, taxes and fees. if the could find or build a house even close to that price. So I guess saving enough to pay your architect is a good thing..

I would be impressed if the house cost $100 per sf and they saved 50k..



Perhaps the crucial ratio from which economists determine whether housing markets are out of whack is the ratio of home prices to annual income. In most of the country, it is modest, 2.4:1 in Wisconsin, 2.2:1 in Kentucky, 2.9:1 in Illinois.

Only in about 20 metro areas, mostly located in eight states, does the relationship of home price to income defy logic. The bad news is that those areas contain roughly half the housing wealth of the country. In California, the price of a home stands at 8.3 times the annual family income of its occupants; in Massachusetts, the ratio is 5.9:1; in Hawaii, a stunning, 10.1:1. To some extent, there are sound and basic economic reasons for this anomaly: supply and demand. Salaries in these areas have been going up faster than in the nation as a whole. The other is supply: These metro areas are "built out," with zoning ordinances that limit the ability of developers to add new homes. But at some point, incomes simply can't sustain the prices. That point has now been reached. In California, a middle-class family with two earners each making $50,000 a year now owns, on average, an $830,000 home. In the late 80s, the last time these eight states saw price-to-income ratios this high, the real estate market collapsed.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells Washington Monthly April MMIV

Ed. This house is in Santa Monica.. I will go out on a limb and speculate that this house is about 2000 sf. at 300/ sf this would be quite a bargain compared to the average 800k CA house and even more so compared to the Santa Monica average of 1 mil.

The gap in house prices between greater Los Angeles and interior America is wider than ever. Go to coldwellbanker.comand see for yourself. Click on home price index. Type in $1 million and select Santa Monica, Calif., an upper-middle-class L.A. suburb, as your base-comparison city. Now select equivalent nice suburban areas across the country and see what comparable houses cost. Here's a sample: Scottsdale, Ariz., $348,000; West Chester/Chester County, Pa., $321,000; Overland Park, Kans., $190,000. You can see that L.A. residents are paying a high price for misery.
Forbes Magazine(online edit.) California Leavin' Rich Karlgaard, 05.23.05

My experience with the design construction industry has been that when I can purchase directly or remove the retailer. I have saved tremendous amounts of money. Add to this rigorous project (construction) management [read time management] and skilled workers not apprentices. The time savings and thus financial savings have been remarkable.

I find the method is as important as the material.

I have found its better to pay for skill and precision than to have a novice figure it out. An example on a recent project we paid $30 /hr ( 250/ day direct) for a skilled mason to buid a stone wall .. some 2000 sf of stone. The budget sf cost for a stone wall is 30 / sf ( 60,000 US) He laid the block backing in one week ( with weather delays- 1250 US) he then took 4 weeks to lay the stone (5000) with the addition of a mudman assistant who also helped cut stone 15/hr (2500) add to that the misc materials..water proofing ,scaffolding rental (1000 ) and the stone purchased directly from a local quarry (1.90 ton @ 20 tons of mixed cut and rubble) which included delivery of 10 miles each direction. Delivered in 4 separate loads ( for ease of space available on site) 10,800 US add 4 Friday lunches for three persons ( 120) the grand total of this stone wall was 20,670 ( quite a savings over the budget price) even adding 20 % for a construction manager to handle this would have still kept the price under 25k less than half of the budget price.

This was on a house whose construction cost was around 300k US ( this was a 10% savings.. we reduced an item which was to be deleted and changed to siding ( Hardy plank ) to an affordable inclusion.

Even with standard materials it is possible to be creative about the entire design and implementation process to create affordability.

Page has a good point that sourcing of materials and workmanship promote as possibly the most efficient cost saving measures. My addition would be the design being minful of the implementation of space saving measures, particularly a reduction in wasted circulation spaces are the best way the designer can build in savings.

I note from many of the design particularly from the US this issue (mostly with kitchens) is fairly unchallenged.

This floor plan (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=453) posted by JP as a reference is a good indicator of such non-consideration toward space saving or functionality. This kitchen obviously aims to portray a style at the cost of function and space, sure however the designer makes no claims as to any aim to save cost, but does present as a example to my argument.

In our business of healthcare and educational facilities our cost savings often occur out of modularity and simplicity. We reduce costs from exterior finishes to finished millwork through the idea of utilization of construction materials in order to reduce waste and unwanted labour (ie full sheet design). We also reduce cost by heavily researching our functional program. Reducing or efficiently utilizing millwork (uppers and lowers) @ a rate of $900 a running foot can produce a significant cost saving on healthcare and educational facilities. Building envelope often consists of wood frame construction with a rain screen wall with exterior brick. Or just stucco. Keep construction simple and create workable details within each trade can aid in some cost savings, but only proportional to size somewhat, as set up and mobilization cost occur no matter what size of project and a reduction in area will not be proportional to cost savings. We have yet to notice a cost saving when it comes to skilled workers. Mainly because the majority of our work is often done by the same contractors. Hope this gives some insight and something to think about.