dancing with architecture: Fredericksburg, Texas

We turned the 4th into a five-day weekend to recharge the batteries somewhat before heading into a challenging rest of July. On Thursday we headed to Fredericksburg, a lovely German Hill Country town about 1.5 hours west of Austin. Europeans to this day attribute good quality construction to solid materials (as in solid rock), and there's a lot of it in Fredericksburg. We're big fans of German- and Alsatian-influenced vernacular architecture of the Hill Country. It's romantic and solid, kinda like Fabio (choke, gasp, gag...). The Germans, ever practical, were attentive to thermal loading (deep overhangs for south facing buildings, few windows in east and west facing walls) and passive cooling.

What really gets us off our butts and out Fredericksburg way are wine allocations at Becker Vineyards. We're big fans of Dr. Becker's (and his wife Bunny's [no joke!]) wines and are wine club members. Every three months (for a fee...) we get an allocation of three bottles, so we have to get out there and pick 'em up! We also stopped at a new place along 290, Four Point O Wine, that has somewhat inspiring Hill Country Modern architecture (and pretty good wines!).

Peach ice cream, anyone?

speakers of the house

Been scatting my head over speakers. We have plans for a number of in-wall and in-ceiling speakers. The question is: What kind to get?

First off, we want to make sure to match impedance between speakers and amplifiers. In short, it's not good to not (somewhat) match your impedances. So since we've decided to go with Sonos for sound amplification and distribution, let's check out the specs on those babies:

• 55 watts per channel
• 8 ohms
• 22 hz to 20 khz

For the surround sound/stereo system, we already have a Panasonic SA-XR57:

• 100 watts per channel
• 6 to 8 ohms
• 4 hz to 88 khz

So we need 8-ohm speakers that ideally cover 22 Hz to 20 kHz (anything more would be a waste of money for the Sonos). Sonos amps also have the ability to push a signal to a powered subwoofer if needed, but we don't anticipate doing that.

As far as speakers go, I've learned the following:

• In-wall speakers that are closed-in (like in it's own box, something called a "back box") have better sound quality. They are also much (much) more expensive.
• It's good for built-in speakers to have good dampening between the speaker and the wall or ceiling.
• Speakers with adjustable tweeters where you can direct the tweeter towards the desired sweet spot are desirable.
• Speakers come in two-way and three-way get-ups. Two-ways use tweeters and woofers to make sound while three-ways add a mid-range speaker.
• Sensitivity is more important than power in a relationship (Sorry: I mean "...in a speaker"). Sensitivity, measured in db, is a measure of the ability of a speaker to turn power into sound. Anything 90 or higher is considered good with most speakers between 87 and 93.
• It's good to match the amp RMA (root mean average) wattage to speaker RMS (root mean squared) wattage. One source suggests that it's ideal to have the amp at 10 percent higher wattage than the speakers. Lower is fine.
• Speakers from the same manufacture are more likely to be timbre matched. It's good to have speakers that are timbre matched.

For the patios and the master bathroom, I'm thinking these speakers sold by outdoorspeakerdepot.com (I wonder what they sell...) are the choice:

Made of a bunch of materials that end in -ene as well as aluminum, these speakers sport the following specs:

• 8 inch
• 8 ohm
• sensitivity = 90
• 75 watts a speaker
• 38 Hz to 21 kHz
• adjustable tweeter
• not enclosed

and run $100 a pair.

For grins, let's see what outdoor has for indoor speakers for $120 a pair:

• 8 inch
• 8 ohm
• sensitivity = 92
• 75 watts a speaker
• 32 Hz to 22 kHz
• adjustable tweeter
• not enclosed

Now let's look at a set of Polk Audio speakers that run $800 a pair (retail):

9 inch

8 ohm

sensitivity = 92

10 to 125 watts a speaker

30 Hz to 27 kHz

non-adjustable tweeter

enclosed

gold plated posts

So for $680 bucks more, you get a broader frequency range (although the Sonos amps wouldn't be able to handle the higher end) and gold plated posts (although audiophiles will tell you that the numbers I'm looking at don't begin to tell the full audio story of speakers; ultimately, you have to go listen to 'em).

Polk also makes some cheapies ($130 a pair on the street) for the 99ers:

9 inch

8 ohm

sensitivity = 90

50 watts a speaker

35 Hz to 20 kHz

non-adjustable tweeter

For indoors, outside of the bathroom, we need speakers for the built-in surround sound and the rest of the house (kitchen and master bedroom). To match timbre in the surround sound system, the speakers should really come from the same manufacturer. In fact, they should come from the same family of speakers from the same manufacturer.

Along those lines, I'm thinking of going with lower-end Polks (625-RT) which run about 100 bucks a piece for side speakers:

14 inches by 9 inches

8 ohm

sensitivity = 89

20 to 100 watts a channel

35 Hz to 25 kHz

non-adjustable tweeter

timbre matched to RTi speaker series

"Vanishing" series; small bevel

There are not a lot of reviews out there of in-wall and in-ceiling speakers (and I don't trust "user" reviews anymore; many seemed staged...). But I did find a review of these Polks here.

A slightly higher end Polk would be the 265RTs:

20 7/8 inches by 8 7/8 inches

8 ohm

sensitivity = 89

10 to 200 watts a channel

30 Hz to 27 kHz

non-adjustable tweeter

timbre matched to RTi speaker series

"Vanishing" series; small bevel

They list at $350 a piece but can be found on the street for $200.

Sources:

• About.com
• Electronic House
• gizmag

the road to hell is pavered with good intentions...

The landscape architect has suggested a healthy amount of either concrete pavers or limestone for the back yard:

There are pros and cons to both. Concrete would be nice and austere and carry the inside concrete floors outside. Limestone would add some warmth (can't believe I'm saying that...) and perhaps tie in with the limestone cladding on the front of the house.

But my dream pavers? These babies:

Narrow Modular Pavers by Stepstone, Inc. They be beautiful! I first saw them on this project:

They're long, they're linear. They have tonal variations (differences in color). Unfortunately, like all the cool stuff, they ain't cheap. This thread suggests they run $9 a square foot. We need about 480 square feet of paver stuff. Limestone in 2-foot by 4-foot chunks is running about $7 a square foot, so these guys would be a "slight" premium. But man, all these "slight" premiums start to add up...

Since we're having a pleasant chat about landscaping, let's talk about planters. The architects would like to see some planters out back in these places:

They're thinking metal, probably the rusty kind, like these posted up at Houzz:

But I'm wondering about doing something like this:

which is something I photographed at the new Hop Doddy's off of Anderson Lane. I kinda dig that board-line look. 

The landscape architect is thinking limestone block for the garden beds out back, but I think this concrete business would work there as well, or perhaps something like this I saw at the Wildflower Center:

And while we're on the landscape topic, we'd love to have one of these purple martin houses:

Spacey (and mosquito free)!

housewerk: rent, driveway, allowances, and windows, oh my!

Misc. random updates.

the rent is too damn high!

Got notice last week that we have to decide now (two months before our current lease is up) whether or not to renew and for how long. Oh, and btw: your rent is going up 20 percent. hmmm...

Decision #1: To move or not to move? We entertained moving closer to the lot/future construction site. We'd be closer to the lot and would be able to get a lower rent. But we'd have to move (which is a huge pain) and move into a lower-rent property (both literally and figuratively). Timing wise, the build is going to occur during the worst possible time for me: During the legislative session. Despite all my attempts to avoid this, this is where we are (thank you Architect 1.0...). Living downtown works better for that and we were going to live downtown during the build anyway, so... We're going to stay!

Decision #2: How long of a lease should we sign? The loose ends (finalizing the budget, financing) are taking longer than we thought, so it's a wee bit of a crap shoot when the house will be done. The builder estimates a seven-month build plus a one-month punch out. So let's round that up to nine months and plan on construction not starting for another two months, which puts us with a nine-month lease starting in September.

the unbidded

There are several large ticket items that remain unbidded: the driveway, the front walls, and the sound wall.

The builder has an allowance in the budget for 1,500 square-feet of concrete drive at $5,250. This number appears to be for the totality of the drive, including the bit in the back noted as Grasscrete (green in the diagram below). The part of the site plan marked as concrete (gray in the diagram below) is about 700 square feet. It's still unclear to me whether or not the sidewalk approach to the house is in the bid (shown in blue below).

A continuing source of confusion at this point is how the landscaping fits into the project and impacts the hardscape. The architects included some of the hardscape (driveway, sidewalk approach to the house, Mies wall), but the builder was expecting something from the landscape architect; however, the landscape architect honored the driveway/sidewalk hardscape features (which didn't surprise me), and his plans are not as detailed as the architects' plans (not even close). After a few emails and a face-to-face with the builder, I think we finally got it all cleared up (I think...).

The builder says that Grasscrete will cost $12.50 a square foot to install. That's considerably higher than the $3.50 a square foot for straight-up concrete and considerably higher than the 30 percent premium the manufacturer suggests. Earlier discussions with the builder (a year ago) suggested it cost about 50 percent more. But with those numbers, try 357 percent more. Whoops. There's about 500 square feet of Grasscrete on the plans. With concrete, that runs at $1,750. For Grasscrete, try $6,250, a $4,500 premium. Something tells me we ain't putting in grasscrete after all... I've sent a note to the local Grasscrete dealer to confirm installation costs. Something doesn't seem right here...

Not shown on the figure but accounted for in the budget is the sidewalk in the right of way. The city will require us to either install a sidewalk in front of our house at a cost of $1,050 or pay about twice that to not put a sidewalk in. This requirement is kinda massively goofy: There are no sidewalks on our side of the street. And what's the logic for charging more for not putting one in? Bottom line: We're not going to pay for the luxury of not having a sidewalk. If the city wants a sidewalk, by Lenin, we'll give 'em one (but hopefully not with Turkish rebar; friends of ours had to tear out their "city" sidewalk when the inspector noticed the rebar they used was Turkish. Build America applies to private funds building stuff on public property?!?!?!!?).

The footing for the Mies wall (the wall in front of the entryway) appears to be included in the budget ($890), and the builder says that it will be an additional $1,710 to finish the wall out (assuming I understand his number; which I don't completely [I can't tell if his number includes the footing or not... Sigh.]). If we want to add the other two front walls out front, we're looking at adding another $3,500. A later addition, perhaps?

We still don't have an estimate of what it would cost to build the back wall. Early discussion with the builder suggested $10 a square foot of surface area, which amounted to $7,000, but the front wall is coming in much (much) higher than that (albeit stucco'd), so I've got a bad feeling about that wall back there... We won't be able to go to the bank until we know what it will cost to build that wall. As the bride says, "We have to have that wall!"

no allowances allowed (except when they are...)

We've not met our goal of figuring out all of the allowances before getting a loan, but we made a good run at it. At this point, it's not worth holding up the loan and work to get the last items fully spec'd and bidded. Lacking at this point:

• handrail (which seems way low...)
• central vac
• tile
• audio

Window D, aka "The Mondrian Window"

One of the action items for the builder was pricing out Gerkin storefront windows for the entire house to see if they were comparable in cost to Milgard. It was an interesting result. In short, Gerkin was about $4,400 more expensive than Milgard. However, the subcontractor Gerked the large Mondrian window (aka Window D [as it is indicated on the plans] shown below) out the rear of the living room and it came in $3,400 less than the other sub using some other source of storefront.

The only problem is that Gerkin has size limitations that won't allow the above configuration. Instead, the sub priced out this approximation:

A valiant attempt, for sure, but not nearly as artful as what the architects first came up with. The Gerkins can't be wider than 48 inches, and casements (windows that open) can't be higher than 60 inches. We've asked the architects to redesign Window D to accommodate Gerkin's limitations. Their original design is simply perfect, so we'll see if they can come up with something better!

If we want storefront all about the house, we can have it for $1,000 more. Architect 2D, keeping an ever-watchful eye on budget, notes the Gerkin plus Milgard results in an overall savings of about $3,400 (although it would be a wee bit less than that because it would be cool to use storefront at the front of the living room). The bride loves the storefront, so I'll let you guess where this is heading...

Fifty Shades of Grey(water)

Nifty article in todays' newspaper about household greywater use, which is the on-site use of water from showers, bathtubs, washing machines, and sinks (although I've heard folks say that washing machine water is considered blackwater [like toilet water] because of the possibility of washing cloth diapers [and the occasion shart residue...]). We briefly considered using greywater at our new house, but the local codes are fierce and a real disincentive (only one permit has been given to do this in Austin). After hearing Rebecca Batchelder (she has that permit) speak at a function last fall about her efforts and the list of concerns, I completely marked grey off the list.

Greywater is "special" in that it tends to have higher salt content, so you have to worry about salt buildup when you use it for irrigation. And there are other nutrients to be concerned about as well. Let's say, hypothetically, you went to the zoo and a monkey named Nolan Ryan threw poop at you. When you go home to shower, all that poop you shower off (as well as the associated pathogens and [possible] residual steroids) goes into your greywater system. Yuck. This is why I don't go to the zoo (or baseball games)...

There are statements in the article about water being wasted if it's allowed to go down the drain, a pet peeve of mine (the statement bit, not the drain bit). Water that goes into the sewer is treated and may show up in the parks downtown (if you see purple pipes and hardware, that's treated wastewater [don't drink from that bubbler!]). And some of it goes back into the river ("return flows"), supplementing environmental flows and perhaps providing water supplies downstream (40 percent of Houston's water supply from the Trinity River is from return flows from Dallas and Fort Worth). In short, water that goes down the drain is not wasted. I suppose you could make a lifecycle argument about why it's better to treat greywater onsite rather than in a centrally located plant, but that water ain't wasted. As they say in Dallas: "Flush twice: Houston needs the water!"

The article mentions "pricey devices". They're talking about a backflow preventer, sometimes referred to as an RPZ (reverse pressure zone). One of these suckers costs $500 700 or so to buy and install and $50 to $100 to inspect annually. An RPZ keeps water from your side of the water line from moving into the city's system if the city's system loses pressure. An RPZ is also required for pressurized rainwater harvesting systems.

The RPZ requirement drives rainwater and greywater harvesters nuts. Even if your rainwater or greywater system is completely separate from the city supply, the city wants an RPZ at your house. As a gravelly voiced rainwater radical once told me (I call him the "Godfather of Texas Rainwater Collection"), swimming pools are a greater threat to water supply than rainwater tanks based on how many pools he sees with a hose plopped in 'em (during a pressure loss in the city system, it could suck that pool water into the distribution lines;  I sure hope Timmy didn't pee in the pool!).

Speaking of RPZs, here's one I saw Saturday in South Austin:

Purdy! If you see one of these babies in someone's front yard, there's a pressurized rainwater system (and grumpy rainwater harvester) nearby!

(de)construction loan

Unless you're loaded with cash, you will probably need a construction loan. And indeed, we need one. Not finding exactly what we wanted at our bank or with the banks the builder recommended, we talked to the broker we used when we bought our lot. So far, this is what we've learned:

• Bankers and brokers talk fast and sound like New Jersey used car salesmen. 
• Bankers and brokers do not speak English.

So here's my feeble attempt to try and make sense of the nonsensical...

single-close v. double close

There are single-close and double-close loans. For a single-close loan, you (ahem) close once. At the end of construction the loan automatically transitions into some flavor of a permanent loan. Presumably you save money with a single-close loan because you only have to pay fees associated with closing the loan once. A double-close loan means you have two separate loans: One for construction and a separate one for the permanent loan. Two loans, two sets of fees. However, you can shop the loan for the best deal on construction and then, once construction is complete, shop around for the best deal for a permanent loan. However, involving a broker comes at a cost, typically 1 to 2 points (percent) of the loan amount. That can be a bit of cash. Also, ironically, you generally have to apply for a long-term permanent loan for a standard construction loan. 

construction loan term

One thing to figure out is how long you want your construction loan for, typically between 6 to 18 months. In general, the longer the term the higher the rate. You don't want to be too long because that will increase the rate and the carrying costs, but you don't want to be too short because that can introduce (more expensive) penalties. Because things often go wrong during a build, you want to err on the side of too much time rather than too little. And even if you purposefully overestimate the build time (we've been warned by friends that there's "Builder Time" and that there's "Real Time"...), you'll want to fully understand what the penalties are for going over. If you're doing a single-close, you'll also need to figure out the term of the permanent loan.

interest now or interest later?

You'll want to find out if you'll be paying interest on the construction loan as you use the money or if you'll be using an interest reserve. With an interest reserve, you pay no interest during the construction loan; instead, it gets rolled into the permanent loan at the very end. This is desirable because it frees you up from paying on two notes during construction. On the other hand, this causes your final loan (and thus final monthly payment) to be larger. If the bank doesn't offer an interest reserve, make sure you can handle the additional payment, perhaps setting cash aside to cover the interest payments. Here's a tool for estimating interest on a construction loan.

construction loans tend to cost more...

Because of their higher risk and greater amount of work, construction loans tend to cost more than a mortgage. This applies to interest rates, escrow, title insurance, and appraisals. And then there are additional fees you don't see on a mortgage such as course-of-construction insurance (which may be included in the contractor's bid) and administration and inspection fees. 

don't be a dummy

The most excellent "Building Your Own Home for Dummies" book (I own it in both hard and digital forms...) recommends qualifying for as much cash as you can from the bank. For example, if all you expect to need is $150,000, qualify for $200,000 if the bank will "give" it to you. The logic is that if something unexpected happens (for example, the geotechnical coring missed the landfilled part of the lot [happened to a friend...]) and you don't have the cash to cover the added cost, the loan can come to the rescue.

loan-to-value

For construction loans, banks tend to want to see a loan-to-value ratio of 80 percent or lower (some as low as 65 percent). In other words, if the total value of your project is $100,000, they won't be inclined to loan you more than $80,000. That other $20,000 needs to be on the table either as existing value (say, the lot) or cash (your money!). From the bank's perspective, the lower this ratio is, the lower the risk. Remember, the bank is fronting you their money and gambling (so to speak) that you will be able to finish the house and move in. If something horrible goes wrong (for example, a nasty divorce over pendants lamps, a builder that goes AWOL, or economic collapse due to alien invasion), the bank would then be in the unenviable position of finishing and selling the property. They want to make sure they can get their money back. Along those lines, they want to see that you have some money in the bank, a great credit rating, a lowish debt-to-income ratio.

contingency

Knowing that most construction projects go over budget, banks will often add a contingency to the loan, usually somewhere in the 5 to 10 percent range. Sometimes the contingency is applied to each category, and sometimes it's calculated off the total and slushed among the different categories. And some banks will add their own contingency on top of the builder's contingency (a contingency-contingency). In this case, consider removing the builder's contingency. However, just because you got a construction loan for X doesn't mean you have to spent it all. Again, additional headroom can be good.

quick on the draw

You need to know how the money will be disbursed from the loan. There are a couple major methods: the voucher system and the draw reimbursement system. The voucher system is the old skool way of disbursing funds and is more tightly controlled and requires more paperwork. The voucher says what the bank will pay for what services and, once signed by the subcontractor and verified by the bank, payment is sent and lien liability is removed.

With the draw system the bank disburses funds to you and the general contractor according to a schedule or achieving certain milestones and it becomes the job of you and the GC to pay the subs. The draw system is more efficient time-wise (no chasing down signatures and whatnot), but is more risky to the bank.

where we are at

We were hoping for a single-close to 30-year fixed. Unfortunately, our current bank doesn't offer this. It does offer a single-close to 15-year fixed with 4.49% for construction and 4.24% for final and a single close to 5-year fixed followed by a 20 year ARM at 4.49% construction and 4.00% final (for the fixed before it floats). These are both draw-based loans. We talked to a couple other banks the builder recommended, but they don't offer single-close loans.

We talked to the broker we used to finance the lot, and he's steering us away from a single-close loan. The construction loan he's pointing us to is at 6% for a Texan but out of town bank, and then we'd have to find permanent financing once the home is complete. His pitch is that interest rates are unlikely to rise over the next year (we agree with that assessment) and that he'll be able to get into a low-rate loan at the end. But what's up with that 6% when we can get 4.5% at our local bank? That's about $4,000 more in interest over the course of our expected construction loan! I'm not liking the sound of that... At present, we're leaning toward our current bank since the broker seems to be a bust. We can always refinance into a lower rate later even with a single close loan.

Given our financial situation (we're parlaying the financial rewards from our previous house into this one) and complete lack of debt at the moment, our project should be relatively low-risk (and perhaps deserving of a lower rate?): The loan-to-value ratio on our project is less than 50 percent.

sources and resources

• Dummies
• Wikihow
• Moneycrashers