Our home renovation project - Opposite of MSE philosophy!!

gzoom

I've always tried to follow MSE philosophy of saving and using money with care which has set us up well to mid life (40s). But COVID showing how fragile life is, and childhood memories of watching Kevin McCloud quiz home owners why they have 'risked it all' in the name of design has made us do something that's the total opposite of everything MSE would say NOT to do!!!

So in 2019 we 'engaged' an architect who came up with a vision of the house we just couldn't say no to....







Fast foward many unforseen issues, planning visits, life etc etc we are now 6 months into the build and hopefully with the scariest bit (post demolition phase) done.



The rebuild is now properly underway and some of the interior space is now taking shape as the steels (35tons worth) as getting installed.

Who would have thought hangover recovery TV back in the 2000s would end up have such a profound impact of our finances come 2020 .

I'll keep this thread updated as we go, but as I've said, it's not anything anyone with any financial sense should copy or do!!!

gwynlas

Who is to say that it will not make financial sense when completed? You are obviously pleased with the plot and the area so only a comparison valuation at the end will tell. Minor upgrades or replacements tend to not enhance values which is why MSE's advise selling dated properties as they stand however major refurbishments and modernisations can increase values by many thousands.

Section62

gwynlas said:

Who is to say that it will not make financial sense when completed?

Not a 'who', but a 'what'..... the 35 tonnes of steel.

Better economy of material would make for a more economic and environmentally sustainable outcome.

It looks like a really interesting project, and I don't begrudge the OP one bit.  But if everyone does the same then this planet is stuffed.

gzoom

Section62 said:

Better economy of material would make for a more economic and environmentally sustainable outcome.

It looks like a really interesting project, and I don't begrudge the OP one bit.  But if everyone does the same then this planet is stuffed.

We asked the engineers on the steels many times, but the choice of materials is as much down to building regulations and the calculations done which showed steel was the only choice - there are 170 pages of calculations + the construction plan is just a bit 'complex'. 

As for 'green' pretence, that's not a rabbit hole I'm going down. We all live beyond the means of what the planet can support, every single one of us, from food, travel, cloths, energy usage everything on how we all live right now. If you really belive in sustainability you need to join in what Exctinction Rebellion are doing, I'm putting my hands up and admitting 'defeat', best outcome for me is I'll be long dead by the time the worst comes......but who knows if that will be true .

But without going totally off topic, I suspect this house will be standing long after everyone on this forum at present is long gone from the planet!

gzoom

gwynlas said:

Who is to say that it will not make financial sense when completed? You are obviously pleased with the plot and the area so only a comparison valuation at the end will tell. Minor upgrades or replacements tend to not enhance values which is why MSE's advise selling dated properties as they stand however major refurbishments and modernisations can increase values by many thousands.

That probably is true, but luckily we aren't doing it for the money or property value. On paper we are acutally lossing a family bathroom and gaining no extra habitable rooms compared to the original layout......double height atrium and 'design' don't add to living space .

Section62

gzoom said:

Section62 said:

Better economy of material would make for a more economic and environmentally sustainable outcome.

It looks like a really interesting project, and I don't begrudge the OP one bit.  But if everyone does the same then this planet is stuffed.

We asked the engineers on the steels many times, but the choice of materials is as much down to building regulations and the calculations done which showed steel was the only choice - there are 170 pages of calculations + the construction plan is just a bit 'complex'. 

I'm not sure it is fair to blame the building regulations.

The problem is with the overall approach to construction.  What you have in effect is a steel-framed building (nothing wrong with that per se) which is then wrapped with traditionally constructed walls, that should be capable of carrying the loads themselves. In effect there is structural duplication.

Having opted for a steel frame there were many options for how the frames were infilled in a thermally efficient way... filling them with standard-size concrete blocks and PIR-filled cavity is - to me - and odd choice by the architect.

The plan is certainly 'complex', but to an extent that is a consequence of choices made.  It isn't entirely clear from the pictures, but it appears 'goalpost' arrangements have had to be put in due to mismatches between the columns at first floor level and the solid walls/columns at ground level.  Relatively small adjustments in the framing and fenestration could have allowed the amount of steel to be substantially reduced. Some value engineering would have been beneficial.

For clarity, none of the above is criticism of you or your choices.  I was responding to the point about 'financial sense'.  A project like this is more about creating a work of art in the form you want.  That comes at a price.  And is why those builds on TV so often take the people involved to the brink of bankruptcy.  This isn't the kind of project where 'financial sense' means there will be an x% return on the cash invested when the property is flipped soon after completion.  You've opted to put cash into steel, rather than cash into an Old Master to hang on the wall.  Which is fair enough, so long as others see past the wow factor and appreciate there is more than just an economic cost attached.

FreeBear

gzoom said: As for 'green' pretence, that's not a rabbit hole I'm going down. We all live beyond the means of what the planet can support, every single one of us, from food, travel, cloths, energy usage everything on how we all live right now. If you really belive in sustainability you need to join in what Exctinction Rebellion are doing, I'm putting my hands up and admitting 'defeat', best outcome for me is I'll be long dead by the time the worst comes......but who knows if that will be true .

Put in lots & lots of insulation in excess of Building Regulation requirements, install as many energy saving measures as you can, and it will offset the environmentally non-friendly materials to some extent. Depending on the size of the plot, plant a few long lived trees to mitigate the carbon emissions during construction.

Doozergirl

FreeBear said:

gzoom said: As for 'green' pretence, that's not a rabbit hole I'm going down. We all live beyond the means of what the planet can support, every single one of us, from food, travel, cloths, energy usage everything on how we all live right now. If you really belive in sustainability you need to join in what Exctinction Rebellion are doing, I'm putting my hands up and admitting 'defeat', best outcome for me is I'll be long dead by the time the worst comes......but who knows if that will be true .

Put in lots & lots of insulation in excess of Building Regulation requirements, install as many energy saving measures as you can, and it will offset the environmentally non-friendly materials to some extent. Depending on the size of the plot, plant a few long lived trees to mitigate the carbon emissions during construction.

That was the absolute joy of a self build for me.  Exceeding the regulations, making the house as energy efficient as possible because I had the freedom to design it from scratch and do so.  That's where the extra money went for us.  

We had to value engineer exactly because there was duplication and we could have also ended up with two structures - steel and SIPs, with no really tangible benefit to our lives.  The value engineering (changing a fully hipped roof to a hip-to-gable) got us a bigger house, so we won both ways.    The SE still screwed me by not telling me to move a doorway a foot to one one side and we ended up with a steel goal post around the bedroom door.  It still really annoys me that it's there.  

I've worked with too many architects to trust them to do things with the correct balance of attention paid to everything and not just a pretty picture.  Client budget being number one on that list. 

gzoom

The context of the design process was that there was no original plans to demolish anything, and the steels were needed to reinforce structural walls that weren't designed to hold the weight of a proper gable on the 1st floor.

The current state of demolition only occurred when the builders found the existing walls were even more badly built than planned, along with very poor existing foundations. We could have paused at that point, and asked the architect+engineers to reassess, but that would have added at another chunck of time to the process, run the risk of the builders disengaging with potential for retenders...

The builders right from the start wanted to just knock the whole thing down and essentially do a new build fabrication with a timber frame. Whats interesting about that is if we had chosen to essentially do a new build from the ground up we will almost certainly not have come up with the same 'design'. More likely we would have ended up with a standard 'new build' project for the sake of cheaper construction costs etc.

We've considered a heat pump (have solar, battery for the house, and EV), but right now I just want the structure of the house done. The entire ground floor will have essentially under floor heating, and up stairs bedrooms will have A/C. I would actually want a ground (or even water sourced - have access to a brook at the back of the house, and the plot size of 0.5 acres is big enough for ground pipes) heat pump versus air, but costs will be much higher, so another project for 2030-2040 I suspect  .

We have no intention of working with anymore architects or surveyors after this build!!

GDB2222

gzoom said:

The context of the design process was that there was no original plans to hdemolish anything, and the steels were needed to reinforce structural walls that weren't designed to hold the weight of a proper gable on the 1st floor.

The current state of demolition only occurred when the builders found the existing walls were even more badly built than planned, along with very poor existing foundations. We could have paused at that point, and asked the architect+engineers to reassess, but that would have added at another chunck of time to the process, run the risk of the builders disengaging with potential for retenders...

The builders right from the start wanted to just knock the whole thing down and essentially do a new build fabrication with a timber frame. Whats interesting about that is if we had chosen to essentially do a new build from the ground up we will almost certainly not have come up with the same 'design'. More likely we would have ended up with a standard 'new build' project for the sake of cheaper construction costs etc.

We've considered a heat pump (have solar, battery for the house, and EV), but right now I just want the structure of the house done. The entire ground floor will have essentially under floor heating, and up stairs bedrooms will have A/C. I would actually want a ground (or even water sourced - have access to a brook at the back of the house, and the plot size of 0.5 acres is big enough for ground pipes) heat pump versus air, but costs will be much higher, so another project for 2030-2040 I suspect  .

We have no intention of working with anymore architects or surveyors after this build!!

Thanks. You answered my question, which was why didn’t you demolish the lot and start again?

ThisIsWeird

Looking forward to seeing how this progresses. In for Christmas?