Go Green, Go Small

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) released a report today on an evaluation of waste prevention practices using life cycle analysis.  The report focused on 30 different measures and the impact they could have on our environment over a 70 year span.  We thought some of these measures might fare favorably.  Such include advanced framing, using salvaged materials, drywall clips, and other such resource efficient methods.  Of all the measures focused on though, the winners were smaller homes and multi-family living.  This would make sense since the measures we favored would tend to have more of a point of use impact whereas the clear winners would have more of a lifetime impact.  You can read the full report on ODEQ's website.

In this case, smaller home means 1149sf, half the size of the national average.  Istockhouseplans finds this rather exciting since our average designed house size is tending that direction.  We noted last December that average house size has peaked and is on the slide.  While not all the chips are falling immediately into the tiny house movement, it's encouraging to see the push this direction.  We hope that large home builders will be able to reduce their house sizes by using some of the techniques that the tiny house design community has put forth.  We will continue to work on our plans adding more 700sf and smaller plans as time allows.

Tiny+

Istockhouseplans seems to be creating a middle ground of homes in our arsenal.  We have composed quite a little group of tiny homes, by our definition 600sf and less.  With such homes as the Albina and Albina A encroaching above that mark we are having to redefine what a tiny home really is.  Both of these examples are under 600sf but have non-legal loft space of 300sf.  One could define a tiny home on square footage alone.  Part of the problem here is when a tiny home gets a modification that increases it's size past the cutoff point.  Does it then suddenly become a standard sized single family home?  We would like our classifications to make sense but also be flexible without being unruly.  So perhaps we increase our benchmark but it becomes a game of chasing one's tail.  At some point a tiny home may be around 1000sf.  Do we then bring all the related models up to the standard set on account of the largest revision?

In the meantime we have increased our tiny home definition to 700sf if only to accommodate our latest design.  The Durham A is based off of the standard Durham, but with an attached 10x12 addition.  This brings this little 1 bed 1 bath accessory dwelling up to 696sf.  Why do you think we upped our maximum size?  We liked the original of this little beast but were inspired to increase it after playing with some LEGO bricks.  In fact, the picture on set 5477 looks similar to what we ended up building.  Our drawn plans have a little more precision than the plastic brick model.

Speaking of which, if you would like to commission a LEGO model of any of our homes that you are building, contact us and we'll talk about details.

I Build House Plans

Well, not us specifically, but one of our house plans was recently purchased and is undergoing a bid process.  Samanns Construction is building the Lombard 1558-2 in Ambler, PA.  His website, http://www.203locustst.com is currently soliciting bids for every part of the construction process.  If you are able to conduct business in Ambler (north a bit of Philly), contact them to submit your bid.

Only two things disappoint us about this build.  The first is that they removed the bay windows, especially the inset bay in the dining room.  While we can understand the desire for an easy square build, it feels like the character is being removed.  Second, that they offer carpet in the basement as an upgrade.  This is almost always a sure-fire way to get mold unless you are meticulous about your specifications.  We bid you a sincere good luck.

Thanks for purchasing from Istockhouseplans and we look forward to seeing the final product!

Historic Fail

If you've seen Istockhouseplans' portfolio lately, you may have noticed a pattern.  We're pretty crazy about historic styles.  Large wood, texture, built-ins, house bling, etc. all play a part in the way we design.  But our design only covers part of the scenario.  We can design all we want, but the final product is left to the builder.  We can spec out materials and such but the fact is that the permitting jurisdiction only cares about structural and code issues.  As well they should.  Historic review boards will care about such matters.  In fact, we were recently privileged to sit in on and testify in front of a historic review board for a private commission we are working on.

While the historic review board was amenable to both historic-ish styles and the builder's pocketbook, we were a little disappointed that they didn't even discuss certain issues.  Some of these we think are crucial to distinguish between a true classic and a blatant reproduction.  While we mentioned some key issues a few years ago, we think that there are three that should always occur on a reproduction or historic remodel:

Windows.  Look at an old house.  Where are the windows located?  They are generally inside the wall.  Now look at most new homes and answer the same question?  The windows on the outside of the wall.  A little 2-3" nudge makes a huge difference.  So how do you install a new flange window inside the wall?  One way is to frame your openings 3" larger each direction and then install a 2x4 subframe inside the 2x6 frame.  The window then gets mounted to the subframe and floats inside the wall a few inches.  Cut down on all the extra wood by integrating the 2x4 subframe as part of the structural load path.  Another option is to purchase tip-in style retrofit windows.  Cost may be a factor in this case.

Siding.  Have you ever wondered why a substandard recladding of an old home looks so disappointing?  Think texture and relief.  First, old homes did not have one type of siding.  Two are minimum.  Even if both styles are lap and the difference is 4" vs. 8" reveal, it can make a house pop.  The biggest problem in our opinion is the relief of fiber cement lap siding.  How thick is the bottom edge of yesteryear's lap siding?  Darn near 1/2".  Now look at the specs of Hardi-plank.  How thick?  5/16", barely more than 1/4".  the stuff might as well be flat.  That tiny little edge looks puny, like trying to do 5/4x6" bargeboards.  Hey Mr. Hardie!  Have you ever considered putting a lip on the edge of that stuff to give it a stronger look?  If we ever get to build, we will not use that stuff.  Who cares if it lasts 100 years.  That's 100 years of puny looking disappointment.  "What will you use then, tough guy?"  What indeed.  Glad you asked.  Wood.  Wood lap siding with a 1/2"+ edge to it that makes the house look like it has been around forever.  Prime 6 sides and paint the visible sides.  Lots of work, yes, but the result is amazing and the durability just as good as Hardi.

Roofing.  It used to be (back when I was a boy!) that the roof color was complementary to the color scheme of the house.  Light grays, browns, even red, blue and green asphalt shingles gave interest to the color scheme below.  Now it seems that most new homes are similar to the Model T.  "Your roof can be any color you want, so long as it's black.  Because I bought 3000 squares and I have to get rid of it..."  Why are new roofs black anyway?  Is it because there's some aesthetic about a sharp contrast to one of the 3 shades of camel that new homes are colored?  We think it looks like a thick heavy black cap that smashes the house down and makes it look foreboding.  It also invites heat to be absorbed into the attic.  If you're building new historic or renovating, please don't use black.

If anybody out there can answer our concerns, we would love to hear.  Add a comment to this blog and set us straight.

I curse you... thinner!

As if taken by some inexplicable force, Istockhouseplans has become more and more obsessed with smaller and smaller homes.  Our latest release is sure to boggle the mind.

The Cascadia 1052 was contrived after looking at a typical 15' skinny house the wrong way.  The massing portion appeared to be only 10' wide and seemed reasonable.  "What the hey, let's see if it will work!"  It, um, did.  Sort of.  We made a 3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom home in 1009sf and 10' wide.  It's kind of like a shotgun house except it's 2 stories.  So it's more like a single barrel shotgun with a massive sniper scope.  Give it a look and tell us what you think.  If the reaction is generally positive, maybe we'll try another iteration.  If the consensus involves torches and pitchforks, we'll drop the price.  If there's no reaction whatsoever, we'll go out for beers.

Speaking of which, the first person to build these plans gets a free 6-pack, on us.

May We Suggest?

From time to time Istockhouseplans receives questions about our plans.  Some feel that we are too light with our information, not including enough detail.  If this sounds like you it's quite possible that you have worked with an architect in the past.  Architects are quite notorious about detail.  As we noted earlier, we are not those architects.  A colleague said something very true the other day.  The quote mostly follows, "My plans are more of a suggestion.  It's up to the builder to take care of the details."  While this may sound arrogant or lazy, we see real value in this statement.

We have tried filling detail into plans only to have it ignored.  A good example is stairs.  If you are site-building stairs, there are at least three ways to build the carcass, at least three ways to attach the treads and risers, and at least three ways to attach a finish material.  Right there are 27 ways to build stairs.  We see no need to include every possible detail.  You as a builder are going to build stairs the way you have always built stairs.  If the situation messes up your usual way of doing things, you'll figure out a way on your own based on your own experience.

The same goes for detailing exterior trim.  This is why our houses look fairly plain.  All of our homes are drawn with typical 6" lap siding except for the occasional board and batten or shingle pattern.  Don't like it?  Change it, we don't care.  If you want to throw T1-11 all over it, feel free (but for heaven's sake, don't tell us, send pictures or advertise it as our plan!)  Don't like the kitchen layout?  Fine with us, talk to an NKBA professional.  Porch too small/big/unattractive?  Have a beer, peruse a magazine, and design your dream porch suitable to your region.  It's all in your hands.

Or put it this way: Our house plans are like a cooking recipe.  Add more meat, change the veggies, and spice it up a notch.  Throw in your own special ingredient, change the heat, or create a redux to simplify the whole thing.  (FYI, cooking is a side hobby in the office kitchen).

We feel it is our job to create some space layout, flow, and basic structural capacity.  But the rest we leave to you.  If we feel something is important to a particular look, we might detail it out.  Send us an email and we can give some more suggestions.

Travelogue

For Istockhouseplans, it's fun to know that you've made an impact.  In our last post we shared a great kudos email we received that encouraged us to keep it up.  It got us to thinking, where all have we been?  So we pulled up prior invoices and found as many sites as possible.  While not quite everything is available, we added as much as we could to a Google map to see where we've been built.  So far:

2 countries,
9 states,
1 province.

From the frigid north to the humid south and sea to shining sea our plans have inspired their own building.  If you'd like to see the map for yourself, check out our mapplet on the website.  Most pins are in the general area that the house was built since we don't always know the exact address.  You might note other plan names and wonder why they're not for sale on the main site.  Most of the time it was a custom design that we have kept proprietary to the commission.  Other times it may be that we haven't finished the plan for national sale yet.

If you have built one of our plans and you're not on the map, or you would like to give us a more specific location, we'll gladly move the pin to get a more exact representation.  To those of you who have built our plans, thanks for your support.  For those of you only browsing, consider those that have gone before you.  We hope to fill every state some day with at least one pushpin.  Be that pushpin!

Why we do what we do

We recently sold a plan and wanted to share the kudos we received.  As we've mentioned before, we don't market plans to the masses.  This isn't about rolling over to make a buck.  This is about holding to a standard and doing it well.  We got some new wind under our wings, coal in our tender, lead in our pencils.

Or something.  Anyway, here's the email we received:

"My husband and I are building the home ourselves next summer on a beautiful coulee in North Dakota.  If you are ever in the state - stop by.  I spent days searching for a house plan that was economical to build, timeless and beautiful.  Glad we found it!"

Thanks!  That about sums up our entire business philosophy, mentioned in our very first blog post.  Check out Istockhouseplans for a catalog full of plans that fit this description.

Tiny Housing and Where to Stick it.

As you may know, we have been more and more interested in designing tiny houses.  Michael Janzen at the Tiny House Blog recently posted a good article detailing how to find land to build your tiny house.  Though many places have restrictions, there are more that do not.  Michael is from California and writes from that perspective.  Istockhouseplans gave an Oregon perspective.  The main points of the article are:

1. Avoid building codes

2. Camp on your land

3. Alternate Zoning

4. Trailer Park

5. Build an Ecovillage

6. Move to the countryside

7. Camp in a friend's backyard

8. Hide in plain sight

9. Seek a variance

Our reply and additional information for Oregon:

Oh boy Michael, I think this is a big can of worms. Pardon, in advance, the long post that I feel is coming. I am familiar with Oregon Building Codes (based off of IRC) and many of the greater Portland area municipalities’ zoning codes. I write from this perspective.

States that have building codes truly are protecting folks. The code and inspections ensures that the house is being built safely. Moreover, room size minimums are to be sure that unscrupulous builders do not create 1000sf 5 bedroom (3 of which are 6′x5′ without a closet) homes akin to tenement housing. This is accountability and guides consumer expectations. I do realize that consumers have been conditioned to expect a small bedroom to be 10′x11′ and the previous example would probably not sell.

The codes also are in place to protect firefighters in rescue situations. I recently was privileged to listen in to the Oregon State Code Board and their revisions to our next code update. Most of their structural concerns were with firefighter safety. A floor over a basement collapsed last year due to structural inadequacy, causing the death of a couple firefighters. Windows are important too. You may be able to squeeze out of a 2′x2′ opening, but if you are unconscious, you will appreciate having a 5.7sf opening that a firefighter can get into, pack and all.

Oregon has minimum room sizes (70sf) and ceiling heights (7′ +/-) but these can be ignored if you are building the house yourself (contractor’s license not required) and will be living in it for at least two years (not selling it right away). The Carver series of homes on my website plays with this notion. All three homes are less than 300sf. Two have ‘legal’ rooms and the third ignores that standard.

I don’t believe that any jurisdiction in Oregon regulates minimum house size. These restrictions are generally put in place by upper scale housing developments with HOAs. You probably don’t want to live there anyways. Accessory structures are allowed without a permit in most zoned areas if they are 120sf and less. Oregon has increased this maximum to 200sf.

Camping on your land near municipalities is generally allowed but carries a rule of no more than 30 days in any 6 month period and cannot be closer than 3 miles to an established city (Clackamas County, some rural zones). I understand the idea is to keep transients from mucking up areas. Oregon apparently does not like it’s transients.

Your idea regarding multi-family is a great idea. Some of the zones around Portland allow for separated structures, but some require attached units. City of Portland has a minimum amount of units to be built on a piece of land. For instance, a 100′x100′ parcel in R-2 zoning requires a minimum of 4 units. They must all be built at the same time or within a couple years of each other.

Variances can be sought around here, but require several things. The first is that you must get approval from a percentage of neighboring properties within a certain radius. The second is that you must prove a hardship in order to apply for the variance. Most of the time, the use must not preclude the base zone use. For instance, trying to get a house built in an EFU (exclusive farm use) zone has several restrictions. The land is considered high quality and reserved for crops.

Setting up as an ADU is generally encouraged by the City of Portland and most other jurisdictions. Portland has even reduced their fees to create an ADU. Clackamas County will only allow one kitchen on a piece of property.

I like the idea of hiding in plain sight. I was recently looking at a piece of land that was 30′x1300′. This was a county owned property that was being auctioned off at a starting bid of $1048. It was zoned for farm use only, but allowed buildings that were incidental to farm use. My thought was to use the land as my own personal garden and orchard. I would build a 198sf (avoid permits) cute (neighbor appeal) ‘processing shed’ (incidental to farm use) and use that as a tiny cabin. My family of four would spend weekends there. In the fall, we truly would use the bed platforms to process bushels of apples.

My best option for a permanent home would be to purchase one of these substandard county parcels through auction that was zoned for housing. These parcels are considered substandard because they won’t fit a 40′ wide home and are therefore sold for 4 digits as opposed to 5 or 6. Many rural properties around here want a 10′ side setback. With the previous 30′ wide property (were it zoned residential), that would allow for a 10′ wide home, plenty wide enough for me to work with (and allows for the minimum 7′ wide rooms). In fact, cantilevers are allowed that would allow some rooms to be wider than 9′ inside.

Problem is that while I would spend $1000 for the land, I would end up spending $5000 or more for a well and $10,000 for a permit. I would install a composting toilet and avoid the septic cost. I do the building myself and after all costs are considered, I’m in a permanent legal place of 600sf for around $40k. This is acceptable to me but I know that others will be wanting to do the whole package for under $10k.

My other option was to enact the camping clause, drag a 28′ trailer to the site, and build a tiny home on it. Maybe even with pallets!

I hope this helps some of your readers who live in other parts of the country to explore their local codes and see what they can pull off.

Putting our designs where our thoughts are

Our last post explored some skinny homes that, while cute, may not be your idea of full time living comfort.  As a sort of compromise, we present to you our version of a skinnier home.  While we currently have a typical 15' wide home in our catalog, we pushed the envelope a little and came up with 12' wide.  The Fremont 1260-3 is actually a triplex that can fit on a standard 50x100' lot if your zoning allows.

This delightful little creation has actually been on our books for a year and a half.  We'd get frustrated with the little gem, then have new vigor, only to repeat the cycle over and over.  Even still we are trying to work out one more detail area.  But it is available for sale should you like to maximize the potential rent on your lot.

Each unit is 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths and 1181 square feet.  We even managed to add a single car garage to each unit.  We tried to give some character with a tipout on either side and ended up creating a bit of a nightmare roof line.  After chasing our tails on that for a while, we tamed the beast and made it less Escherish.

This was a bit of an experiment in skinniness and our first attempt.  We are researching some other design ideas and working on another skinny mini.  Hopefully it will see the light of 2010.  If you are interested in skinny homes for skinny lots, contact Istockhouseplans for a custom job.  We are interested in some challenges for homes that are less than 15' wide.

Anorexic Architecture

Our current fascination with tiny homes started with one dimension only. Several years ago we were patrolling the web for skinny homes. Not just skinny homes, but the skinniest homes in the world. Our thought was in trying to cram as many homes as possible onto a 50x100' wide lot, assuming zoning allowed. Given that 5' setbacks are typical, we figured there would be a 40' wide footprint. Most folks would say 2 attached 20' wides would be typical. We are currently working on a 3-16' wide building. But you could easily do 4-10' wide houses. Crazy? Consider that building code requires a minimum 7' wide room in homes and you could cram 5-8' wide homes onto that lot.

But history has brought about some even skinnier homes. Boston, MA and Alameda, CA have their 10' wide homes. In Alexandria, VA is a skinny house that was built to close off an alley. The home is 7x25' and two stories tall. In the Montlake neighborhood of Seattle, WA is a house that, while 15' at the front, is 4.5' in the rear.

The most notorious of all skinny homes was the so-called Richardson Spite House at the corner of 82nd St. and the newly punched through Lexington Avenue. Built to spite his neighbor for an insultingly low offer for his 5' sliver of land, each of the two houses built contained 8 suites each which rented for $500 per year.

While we don't recommend building strange homes to spite your neighbors, we are interested in designing homes for lots that seem unbuildable. If you own a piece of property that seems too difficult to build on, contact istockhouseplans and we'd be happy to design a home for you. We appreciate the challenge of taking the zoning and building codes to their limits. Don't be fooled by our stock skinny offering. We can make this thing look like a wide mouth bass.

What's the difference between an architect?

In Oregon there exists a secret society that has all but trademarked a common word and all it's iterations. The only way you can claim to be an architect, do architectural drawings, or practice architecture is to be a 4-year schooled and trained, passed the exam, and certified professional. The idea is to protect the public from folks who do the same thing but are not board certified architects.

I suppose this is rather smart as it would be akin to separating attorneys from legal professionals. However it seems the public is not so trained in the difference. To the general public, anyone who designs a house is an architect. Time and again we have been referred to as architects, asked if we do architectural work, or had our work referred to as architecture. While we are flattered, please be aware that we are not trained or certified as architects per se. However, the State of Oregon cannot keep other individuals from drawing houses and submitting them for permits. (Nevada, however, can and does).

So to be clear, we are not architects. What are we then? We have always referred to ourselves as design professionals. What's the difference? We have training and experience, but we are not certified by a board. We are limited to designing homes of a particular size, but this has been a threshold higher than we care to reach. The main difference is that we cost way less.

If you are looking for a custom designed 8,000sf house, please contract the services of an architect. If you are looking for a cute little stock plan for an 1800sf home, look no further than Istockhouseplans. We have a diverse portfolio of homes and would be happy to help you with your next project.