My architect doesn't seem to be providing much imagination or commentary - is this normal?

Chickereeeee

It looks to me like option 2 keeps the existing supporting walls to the back of the house, minimising disruption and cost. The extension is very much an add-on, and uses the loft to get the lost space back for the 4th bedroom.

The first design assumes cost and disruption is no object, removes the back of the house and designs the layout on that basis. I could imagine you living in the house for the most of option 2's work. Not option 1.

Section62

Chickereeeee said:

It looks to me like option 2 keeps the existing supporting walls to the back of the house, minimising disruption and cost. The extension is very much an add-on, and uses the loft to get the lost space back for the 4th bedroom.

The first design assumes cost and disruption is no object, removes the back of the house and designs the layout on that basis. I could imagine you living in the house for the most of option 2's work. Not option 1.

Both options involve almost complete removal of the rear portion of the house.

Realistically neither option would be livable in for significant periods of time, expecially not if the OP has a family.

the_midnight_Wolfboy

Thank you for the feedback everyone Based on these posts I have called my architect on the points raised , although at this stage didn't get much back of value.

I've gotten more insight from these posts then weeks of back and forth with PDF designs from the architect so thank you all!

Section62

You need the architect to explain how expensive structural steel is at the current time, and just how much of it you need to support that amount of structure over an 8m span.

I asked my architect - she couldn't provide the cost implications in terms of £, but said they could be mitigated by putting a pillar on the kitchen island.

A structural engineer could probably come up with a solution to that problem, but it will add to your costs, and is a strange approach to design, IMV

Thank you for flagging this - she said it would be better if we just moved the window slightly.

Have you got a fixed budget?  People will need an idea of what you can afford to give you good ideas.

We are aiming to keep the build costs under ~£160K, we are trying to think of cost saving measures, e.g. doing two layers of concrete blocks for the walls then using brick slips. Any cost saving ideas would be welcome!

Sometimes you see one half-decent option and one terrible option, and you think the architect has just done the second one really badly to steer the client to their one 'favourite' option.

You could be right- but they've given no commentary on each design, so for us it's difficult to determine the pros and cons. The roof pitch on the house is relatively low, in the event of a loft extension - the whole roof would have to be re-done.

Both options involve almost complete removal of the rear portion of the house.

Yes that's right!  I thought the demolition could be quite expensive as well

I proposed an alternative design in that involved building around the 'T' shape' to retain most of the structure - I think Doozergirl also commented on this a few months ago - before I approached the architect.

I think it would still require steel, not sure how I could minimize the impact without maybe a pillar.

Doozergirl

The obvious thing is that both designs are double storey, so going up into the loft and starting what is effectively yet another structural project is going to cost a great deal more than just going as big as you can with two storeys.

The roof pitch is relatively low, in our house I think they were thinking as a double storey extension would require building half a roof, they could re do the whole roof and make space upstairs - but like you said at this stage it might be worth knocking the whole house down...

A three storey house makes more sense when you don't need as much space downstairs as you've been given but want more upstairs.  Is that the case?

I mean this is the sort of insight we haven't got from our architect - we've just been given PDF designs. We are a family of three, with another child on the way, and we both work from home - so the space would be used - but it's a lot of extra cost reative to the usability.

Ka7e

It would appear more economical to have bathrooms/toilet/utility/kitchen sink all sited on the same side.

I asked her about what you said this morning following your post - she said it's not a big deal to put a soil pipe under the floor from the right side , although again didn't give any £ impact.

TELLIT01

That front extension is 'interesting'.

I agree! We never even briefed on this - I think they did it so they could move the stairs, but it didn't seem like a very cost effective house extension.

FreeBear

the_midnight_Wolfboy said:

Ka7e

It would appear more economical to have bathrooms/toilet/utility/kitchen sink all sited on the same side.

I asked her about what you said this morning following your post - she said it's not a big deal to put a soil pipe under the floor from the right side , although again didn't give any £ impact.

Depending on your floor construction, it might be as simple to lift floorboards and feed a waste pipe under the joists. A concrete floor would need some serious grunt work... Then you'd need a rodding eye near the toilet so that blockages can be dealt with - This adds to the headache of flooring, and rodding eyes look ugly at the best of times.. Or you could dig trenches outside and have multiple inspection chambers - More expense, and additional ugly manhole covers to hide (assuming you have space down the side to go digging).

In terms of effort, put the areas that need drainage on the side where sewers are located. It saves money.

And steel is darned expensive at the moment. Prices have pretty much doubled over the last year or so, and is likely to go even higher in the short term. Big spans of steel is going to be expensive !

Doozergirl

I think what they are drawing is hugely more than £160k.  There aren't all that many measurements on the drawings but looking at option 2 measurements, that's more than 10m x 8m x two = at least 160 square metres 

You're looking at least double that for that size of extension, plus the cost of renovating what is left and demolition...

They're not working remotely to brief.  

Section62

the_midnight_Wolfboy said:

Thank you for the feedback everyone Based on these posts I have called my architect on the points raised , although at this stage didn't get much back of value.

I've gotten more insight from these posts then weeks of back and forth with PDF designs from the architect so thank you all!

Section62

You need the architect to explain how expensive structural steel is at the current time, and just how much of it you need to support that amount of structure over an 8m span.

I asked my architect - she couldn't provide the cost implications in terms of £, but said they could be mitigated by putting a pillar on the kitchen island

I'm quietly sobbing here.  The starting point in the architect's conversation should have been to find out your budget.  Then used their knowledge of roughly how much things cost to find a way of meeting your objectives.  That may have resulted in a conversation explaining how your objectives can't be met for that budget, or a discussion about the compromises that need to be made.  There's no point designing something with a 'T' shaped steel over an 8m span if you don't know roughly how much of the budget that would swallow up.

A pillar would reduce the span and some of the costs, but really there needs to be some more fundamental thinking about the form of the building andhow to achieve your objectives.

A structural engineer could probably come up with a solution to that problem, but it will add to your costs, and is a strange approach to design, IMV

Thank you for flagging this - she said it would be better if we just moved the window slightly.

Yes, although much better not to have designed a window in a postion where it is obvious a substantial load will need to be carried down to the foundations.  This stuff is so elementary for a building professional....

Have you got a fixed budget?  People will need an idea of what you can afford to give you good ideas.

We are aiming to keep the build costs under ~£160K, we are trying to think of cost saving measures, e.g. doing two layers of concrete blocks for the walls then using brick slips. Any cost saving ideas would be welcome!

As above, for that budget I think you will need to go right back to square one and totally re-think the approach.  Storage and rental/hotel costs will take a big slice of that budget before a spade hits the ground.

Sometimes you see one half-decent option and one terrible option, and you think the architect has just done the second one really badly to steer the client to their one 'favourite' option.

You could be right- but they've given no commentary on each design, so for us it's difficult to determine the pros and cons. The roof pitch on the house is relatively low, in the event of a loft extension - the whole roof would have to be re-done.

If the back half(?) of the house is being demolished and rebuilt then you will be looking at close to complete roof renewal anyway.  (Although without pictures of the existing I'm guessing about that).

Both options involve almost complete removal of the rear portion of the house.

Yes that's right!  I thought the demolition could be quite expensive as well

I proposed an alternative design in that involved building around the 'T' shape' to retain most of the structure - I think Doozergirl also commented on this a few months ago - before I approached the architect.

I think it would still require steel, not sure how I could minimize the impact without maybe a pillar.

Fundamentally a large part of your costs will be absorbed in creating that large and open ground-floor space.  You need to ask yourself questions like whether you really want a TV and sofas in the same space as the kitchen... I've seen many architect's plans recently that show things like that, but I'm not sure the clients have been asked whether that represents their lifestyle, or is just what the architect thinks looks cool. Creating big open spaces in existing buildings costs money.

Start with a list of the things you cannot compromise on, and a list of nice-to-haves, and above all, decide whether you can afford to move out for (say) 9 months while the build takes place.  The right solution will start to emerge from there.

TELLIT01

Having been a keen viewer of 'Grand Designs' over the years I'm not surprised at the lack of detail, or likely cost, coming from the architect.  Many seem to operate in a parallel universe where cost and practicality don't come into the equation.  There was one instance a few years ago where the architect specified lime mortar throughout and lime cement floors, with no apparent thought either to the cost or the fact that it takes months to dry.  The client had stated their maximum budget from the outset.  When the client let the architect know they were not impressed, she spat her dummy and refused to have anything more to do with the build, despite supposedly being responsible for resolving any design and functional issues.

FreeBear

TELLIT01 said: Having been a keen viewer of 'Grand Designs' over the years I'm not surprised at the lack of detail, or likely cost, coming from the architect.  Many seem to operate in a parallel universe where cost and practicality don't come into the equation.  There was one instance a few years ago where the architect specified lime mortar throughout and lime cement floors, with no apparent thought either to the cost or the fact that it takes months to dry.

The one where yje floor slab was poured in the middle of a real cold winter, and they tried their best to protect it from freezing. What was going to be a polished limecrete floor ended up looking like a dog's dinner.

daveyjp

Looks to me like the desire for 4 bedrooms is driving the development.

This is resulting in a ground floor which will double the amount of space, but potentially result in a lounge and dining room on the front which never get used.

Doozergirl

daveyjp said:

Looks to me like the desire for 4 bedrooms is driving the development.

This is resulting in a ground floor which will double the amount of space, but potentially result in a lounge and dining room on the front which never get used.

I do agree on the ground floor but the four beds upstairs are all considerable sizes.   They don't all need to be that big either. 

The need could be met on a more modest scale.