saveasteading

If they all used the quantities that the original estimator provided, then the differences would be for their labour rates, their overheads and profit, and any risk they include. Using the same bill of q, and faitly detailed drawings, you might find 3 similar builders within 15%. If you just provide them with planning drawings then they will include more approximations and that could be +/-20%. As nod says, it is a lot of work doing a quote properly. The builder is staking their livelihood on getting it right. If going to 3 builders that is fair.

Much tidier at the top and won't affect the strength significantly. Fill all the voids with concrete. Any advice to the contrary is from somebody tired of mixing concrete.

It will be overturning rather than lift-off. Still seems wrong, but let's await your design. I have seen rock being broken out for concrete. Not a design error, just rock encountered early and nobody stopping to think. Radon barrier. I expect there will be a stage where this will be easier than directly onto the rock. On top of hardcore probably, also acting as your dpm. Direct venting, if necessary, would not require fans, just ventilation.....you have enough wind.

OK, to me it is a mistake then. Computer generated (accurately) but needs to be manually removed from the model and the maps. It distracts from the genuine issues elsewhere, mostly caused by development ( where not a sea issue). I have tried to argue to LAs that they should not allow new developments to shed to watercourses at all. They seem to have been persuaded by the developers that 5 litres per second per acre is acceptable. That is a lot of extra water straight into the rivers. I'm thinking that councillors and planners just think that 5 litres isn't much. The loser would be the landowner, as there would be ponds and lagoons. £1M an acre dropping to only 950k. Ahhh the big landowners again. But then I would also be stricter on exception sites. Did anyone see Grand Designs in Essex this week. Whyever was that permitted?

They have had floods of underground facilitiesthere. Not so cleverly putting electric stations in chambers that flooded. So it isn't much more to be sitting on the ground, esp when developments continue around the area. That does count as flooding. I'm not sure what you are getting at. Floods don't have to be biblical, they can be very local, and that is the way uk rainfall has been changing.

I have used every method of my table apart from ICF, which I tried to make work on a few projects. But that was as a professional. The order changed according to dimensions, function, appearance. Perhaps too a prejudice against brick, or the layers thereof.....if I could, then bricks were out. As an amateur diy builder I think the order changes, esp according to skills. Few could do brickwork. There's no bricks left. When did you realise we were getting low? There's no bricks left.

A lot (all?) of the housing developers are wrong? Savings come in speed and internal works. Plumbing and electrics are through an open skeleton. No chasing. The internals can proceed before the outer skin. Non load bearing stud is cheaper than block. Etc. Excluding the cost of time, there isn't so much in it. Perhaps also depends a bit on the local cost and availability of decent bricklayers.

How long was that? I think that was the issue....it didn't last long on mine. And when you bought a crock it was already likely patched with radweld. There was quite a business in rad repairs and replacements. Something is much better now. Wasn't egg white suggested too?

Patent that. Not a permanent seal, but an indicator. Otherwise it sounds a bit like putting masking tape over the leaks.

Yes. If you asked me the difference, that would be my immediate thought. OR Big squares are the cheapest buildings structurally and in details. Every edge or change of direction will cost say £100/m Oversails about £300/m Plus £100k for the difficulties being designed in. Make that £350k, although i prefer the miami to the alpine, and the finished value would reflect the extra, if built in the right area. So what is your QS saying, that you are asking BH?

Do you mean that it deflects under your foot, or generally?

It reminds me of the additive they used to sell for leaking car radiators. Some fibrous stuff that filled the holes when the water leaked through the holes. Gunked up the rest of the system too. I think the other problem was that it just sealed the gap but had little thickness or strength. Same for this airtightness Snibbo? I am so dubious of the merits, apart from making a leaky house pass a test temorarily, that I won't even read up about it. Let me know if I am wrong!

Of course. Somebody will do this for you at a cost. It can be approximate or more exact, but you will not know for sure until you finish designing and get contractors to quote. Even then you may get +/- 20% variation on the same design. I just used gut feelings from experience in saying what the relative costs were. If you were a real or potential client at this early stage then I would spend 5 minutes getting a rough feel of the cost, or an hour on getting a budget idea, or a week working out a quotation. The latter would be a waste of effort while you have so many options going on. Presumably you have given your architect a budget. Ask them how they are targeting it.

Has anybody suggested bolting your footings to the rock? Depends on the depth of course, but there is little point in breaking out granite and replacing with concrete.

Hunches for me, but based on a lot of experience and also considering each new product as it is introduced, discounting most. My concern re old newspapers cellulose is that it may have been finding a use for a waste product, rather than a genius new product. Paper gets wet and soggy and slumps. Insects and rodents like soft sheltered nests, buildings have flaws. I foresee papier mache at the bottom of a void.

So we are agreed on that. I said £1M plus too. @GK22 does that work for you? The difference between the Alpine idea and the Miami one is probably about £250k for the same floor area.

which one are you referring to ? This. Though I see it has been cut and pasted from another project, or a book of typical details.: a steel building.....which i think yours should be with all these shapes. It isn't much like your design at all, so it seems to be a distraction and I will ignore it. This sort of detail: a lot of effort and putting the building at risk, only for the sake of the crisp eaves detail, is the stuff of the 'wrong sort of architect' as far as ai am concerned. I am all for spending a bit on style, but the fundamental purpose of a building is to keep the weather out....or is that Philistine? But the client will be paying the extra, listening to the gurgling and removing leaves from the 'secret' gutter several times a year, not the architect. Let's be positive..you are being shown lots of ideas.

They are all hard enough for us not to notice.

And your designers. I would have to rummage a long way back, but i recall that the big contractors had targets of something like 10 skips per 1,000m2.* (Ours was 2.) That involved everyone through technical design, ordering, and use as well as site manager ordering reuse of ends etc. But on top of this came simply using less in the first place. Efficient use of all structural elements, no overdesign, no overdig, natural drainage...all sorts. We reckoned 25% less material used, let alone waste. So my view was that hemp etc were easy ways to seem green, while not addressing the less blingy aspects of waste.....use less. It also saves stacks of your money. What i don't understand is that straw is not used in the same way as osb. Or in blocks. There is so much as a waste product. I think sawdust is still added to concrete blocks as a filler. * that became zero to landfill, so a good thing. They way they managed that with mixed rubbish was to classify it as non recycable. Less to recycling would be even better.

Austrian alpine look, and massive. Almost the opposite of the articulated appearance of the first renders.

Stop press. The elevations have just appeared. With gutters. More later. But rainwater pipes inside the building? Really? Gurgle gurgle, and constant concern re leaks and maintenance.

I suggest that you insist these are worked out now, and shown on the drawings. You may be surprised how much they affect the appearance. Your architect may duck this , saying it is detail for later. It isn't...get him to do it now. If he can't, then there will be other issues too. The oversails seem to be very slender. The roof structure will be much thicker, so this will be an add-on rather than continuation of the roof. The gutter may even be deeper than that oversail is shown. Perhaps ask now if this has been considered or is an aspiration. Also ask if there are to be posts at the internals of the glazed corners. Sorry to be picky, but making things work from impractical drawings has been a big part of my career. I'm the one that says you need to deal with the rain. I like Miami deco. The rendering is perhaps Miami weather too. The sun is very high. Not sure of the size. But that is an expensive building. £1M+ ?

I repeat my argument. You understand it as you have done extensive research. Theh have not. Thus you can make it easy for them, and I can't see why that is upsetting.

It does, but very nice offices. I have designed and built several quite like this, so cleagly like the look. People say ours, for offices and schools, are almost domestic, so not so officey , clearly. These overhangs, which are such a big feature....they aren't enough to shade windows, so are entirely for show. They keep rain and wind off the high section of wall, so you will get a stripe of dirt or algae there. Allow for annual cleaning. Ideal to build in steel. The overhangs would then be costing £250 / m run. So I hope you like them a lot. Oh, and there are no gutters or rain water pipes. Oops.

I used that to bridge over old floor boards before tiling. I stapled it down which is what i would do again. Then tiled. The problem I had was that the floor was bouncy, very old and probably under-designed joists, so the STS, being flexible, did not help in stiffening the floor. I think it all settled down, but a few tiles came loose when i walked on the floor perhaps too soon. (Not my house, now sold, so no latest report available). Of course normally people don't jump on a toilet floor. If your floor is robust then yes I would say STS is fine, and easy to use. plus helps a little in insulation. If bouncy then I would use a cement board which would probably kill the bounce.