Architect Wanted

I am a real estate developer planning post & beam housing projects for the near future, beginning in California, and spreading out later. I need an architect, preferrably licensed in California, with some planned community or tract house design expereince, in addition to extensive post & beam architectural design experience.
Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Stan Covington
Zephyr USA

Stan

Can you describe what it is you are calling "post and beam"?
Also you may want to post this under the topic heading. Timber Frame Design

One way to find someone in your area is to go to the TFG home page and click on the "Resource Guide" icon.
Follow the links to the search page and select the proper category for your search and your state and see who's listed there for your area.
Good luck with your search.
Jim Rogers

In response to your question, the definition of post & beam in this case is a structural frame formed by connecting columns (posts) and beams to form an enclosed space suitable for living or working or storage. The structural members in this case would be glulams or engineered wood (LSL PSL), so I am hestitant to call it a timber frame, the nature of the system requiring tolerances far in excess of what can be expected of solid wood, so that the product is likewise of much higher quality in fit and finish than that of a conventional timber frame. The connections are made using ICC-ES listed concealed metal connectors held in place with 1/2" metal drift pins. We have produced over 30,000 units using this method overseas. YMHOS

SRC,
Many of the skilled craftsmen in the TFG will take umbrage with your implication that timber framing is not precision work.
Yes, we even take great joy in conquering that which mother nature grows not straight so the net effect when assembled is straight, plumb and true.
Mayhap you have experienced some sloppy workmanship not up to guild standards in your assessment of timber frames.

Mr. Developer... Why don't you take your post into a different forum and see how many more timber framers you can piss off?

Whit,
When did you delete tact from your vocabulary ?

Emmett, I guess I took umbrage.

I see that I have upset Whit and Emmett, who have "taken umbrage" at my post. I understand your reaction, but you know not of what you speak if you believe timber framing in the US is to the tolerances I am speaking of. When the width, thickness and length of the timbers you use are all +- 1/64", then your umbrage will be justified. When your frames go up without any gaps at the connections, and every joint intended to be 90 degrees on paper is indeed 90 degrees, +-.015 degrees without any jobsite adjustments, then I will apologize and call you master. When you can cut and label the joints and all parts in your frame in two hours, and then erect not only your frame, but install your wall sheathing, roof sheathing and floor sheathing and exterior envelope insulation in 1.5 working days, then I will prostrate myself before you in abject humility. Until then, please calm yourself. Oh yes, and if you know of any good architects interested in doing this kind of work, please let me know: I have lots of work for them.

Regards,

Stan Covington

Hello Mr Covington
I am intrigued and amused by your definitioin of what constitutes acseptable tolerances. It is something I have been thinking about lately. You seem to know what your talking about, so please tell me just exactly why it is essential or even necesary to create a building that is so "squarely square" as it were??
Cheers Jonathan
PS do you think theres a good chance your 30,000 units will still be standing in 600 years time?

Thank you for your interest and amusement: I so seldom have the opportunity to be entertaining.

The tolerances I mentioned are necessary for several reasons. First, the CNC machinary in our factories work to precise tolerances, whether we ask them to or not, and so require material of precise tolerances. As you know, 1/64" is not especially tight by CNC standards.

Second, the erection times I mentioned are not possible if tolerances become sloppy. This is simply because, contrary to statistics theory, in the real world errors tend to accumulate in obedience to Murphy's Law, not cancel each other out. In order to keep a CPM schedule, or program as they say in the UK, jobsite adjustments are not acceptable, and so tolerances must be tight, or Murphy reigns supreme.

Third, the 30,000 customers that own our frames expect the quality such tight tolerances provide. Difficult to believe, I know, but if you doubt it, I suggest you build a few frames for Japanese clients in Japan and see what tolerances they expect, and observe what claims you field after consruction is complete. Brutal business indeed compared to US or UK standards of business (I worked in London for a time as a General Contractor, as a GC in Tokyo for ten years, and another 15 years in the US).

As to 30,000 units standing in 600 years, you jest. You might as well ask how many steel buildings will be standing 600 years after erection. War, wind, fire and fashion wait for no man.

Stan

We're not building pianos here. There are scores of timber framed buildings around the world that are centuries old & exhibit many of the "flaws" alluded to by SRC. They exhibit the heart & soul of their builders, as do many new timber frames. Any exposed work I've seen using PSL, LVL or the like is, to me, comparatively flat & lifeless, reflecting the nature of the materials. I use the stuff too, at times, but a piece of LVL has never inspired thoughts of the forest that gave up the trees to produce it.
Materials & methods aside, whatever systems being used that regulary yield such fast enclosure times are worthy of study, though I've seen smaller, well planned timber frames go up nearly as fast as long as there's sufficient room on site & adequate crane & man power. Standardizing & practicing (30,000 times!) help too.
There's room for all kinds of buildings & builders, just like there are different kinds of people to inhabit them. While setting the bar high is laudable, disparagement of talented, conscientious, hard working builders, no matter what form they build in, cheapens us all.

Hello again Stan old chap

Thanks for your response to my question

As far as timber framing goes I am a new starter, I am a joiner but have developed a serious interest in the specifics of hand cut timber frames with a view to designing and building my own in the not too distant futrue.

I dont know much about making building components with cnc machines, although I spent 4 years digitising full scale drawings to drive cnc cutters and routers for sign making, (clients like british airways, british petroleum, ford garages etc). I had to work (editing)as close as 1/10 mm. The computer might be clever but it cant understand wood and work in synch with its unpredictable and continually unique nature. The way you elevate the "precision" and "accuracy" of components produced by the cnc system, and look down on traditional timber framing (cos its not as squariely square as your beloved cnc unit can produce) reminds me of the sneering contmept my old bosses had for the traditional signwriters they were putting out of work (cos their letter forms werent "consistently reproducable") :rolleyes:
I just had an idea-why not machine your components from solid pvc-much more stable and predictable; you could even weld them together on site or even better get on the phone to germany and get them to design an extrusion that will squeeze little "units" out, one every 2.8 minutes
At the end of the day housebuilding can be high volume assembling of characterless impersonal indentikit units, wasteful of materials and energy, working on short term fashion and profit goals. Or alternatively it can be a social community effort, where homeowners and there neihbours take an active part in designing and creating there own homes; building to last (yes its a serious concept, not a joke-why shouldnt a dwelling last 600 years? plenty have at least in the uk); using or recycling materials that can be obtained from sustainable sources and not harmful to our environment and not demanding vast amounts of energy (to make in a factory, transport around, break up and dispose of to make way for the next fashion trend etc)
Cheers Jonathan

Gentlemen:

Cheap shots. Is that the kind of forum you guys like?

Scott admits that there is room for all kinds of buildings and builders, so it would appear he gets the point, but he then turns around and accuses me of disparaging "talented, conscientious, hard working builders." Rubbish. Nothing I have written has disparged anyone. I have been discussing building systems, not workers.

As to Scott's comments about making pianos, I counter that we are not making barns, either. His attitude is what got General Motors in trouble, and let the Japanese get their foot in the American car market to the point that they now dominate it. People want quality and reliability once they know what is possible. At the same time, I am not denying that there is the consumer that prefers cracks, gaps and knee braces, just as there are people that love wood floors with terrific gouges. These are not my target market. I leave them to you, Scott.

Even some cheap shots by Jonathan, I am dissapointed to see. I am not "looking down on traditional timber framing." Traditional frames have their niche. I have honestly described a different product, and compared the physical tolerances with a solid-wood frame. If the facts bother you, then look away, but don't stoop to slandering me for answering your questions honestly.

The snide remark about PVC extrusions was unworthy and unintelligent. If you don't know why residential framing is done using wood products, do your research or go back to signmaking, but trouble me not with nonsense.

Jonathan slanders me further by implying that my products are "characterless impersonal indentikit units." My, what a large soapbox he has. To the contrary, of the 30,000+ units I mentioned before, ALL are one-off custom designed buildings. He goes on to imply they are "wasteful of materials and energy." On what do you base that broad statement, Jonathan? Certainly not fact, and certainly not on even a basic understanding of commercial wood product manufacturing. Do your research before you attempt to act the expert, please.

I am not joking about buildings lasting 600 years. With good maintenance, most properly constructed building types will last that long. If you doubt it, then you should investigate the repairs that have been made over the centuries to 600 year old buildings. I have, and I know that they survived not just because they were built by romantic, nature loving carpenters with thews of iron, but because each generation was determined they would survive. My point was that Jonathan must be joking when he asks ANYONE how many buildings out of 30,000 will survive for 600 years. Poor flashing and leaky roofs are the initial cause of the deterioration of more wood buildings than anything else. Are traditional timber frames immune to poor roof maintenance? Are they immune to fire, flood, urban renewal, and termites? Don't ask a stupid question and then expect serious people to admire your cleverness.

Jonathan's comment about recycling and sustainability displays a lack of knowledge about both subjects. Perhaps someone with professional industry expereince will take the time to enlighten him about the numbers? I grow bored.

I am saddened that my simple attempt to use this forum to find an architect, and then to answer questions posed, has only resulted in ridicule from the uninformed. I had expected better.

Stan

"...you know not of what you speak if you believe timber framing in the US is to the tolerances I am speaking of. When the width, thickness and length of the timbers you use are all +- 1/64", then your umbrage will be justified."

CNC machines are programmed to those tolerances, sure. But take your tape measure, or calipers, or hook rule, or whatever measuring device you trust onto the jobsite and see what your beloved machine is producing.
Timberframers work with wood, which is an organic material. We often celebrate the irregularity or the natural form of it. We are not working with "extruded cellulose," which, in its attempt to reach perfection, consistently fails.

"When your frames go up without any gaps at the connections, and every joint intended to be 90 degrees on paper is indeed 90 degrees, +-.015 degrees without any jobsite adjustments, then I will apologize and call you master."

Again, you are describing the programming tolerances here. Let's keep it in the real world.
Or have you checked them all with your square?

"When you can cut and label the joints and all parts in your frame in two hours, and then erect not only your frame, but install your wall sheathing, roof sheathing and floor sheathing and exterior envelope insulation in 1.5 working days, then I will prostrate myself before you in abject humility."

If I could do all that, I would have something that none of my clients would want to call home, much less pass onto their grandchildren.

"Until then, please calm yourself. Oh yes, and if you know of any good architects interested in doing this kind of work, please let me know: I have lots of work for them."

To find an architect, check out the TFBC. timberframe.org.
You are barking up the wrong tree here.

Stanley old chap you just dont seem to have a sense of humour do you, Why not loosen up a bit mate and relax. (my comment about plastic components was a little quip, to make you laugh but you obviously didnt "get" it)
PS Mr covington, dont tell me I'm "uninformed"; I just think I'm informed by a different set of values than you are thats all. :rolleyes:

Well, this is all pretty interesting.

If we could edit out some of the bile (from whatever source), it would actually make a pretty good article for our quarterly.

We have had some success in the past publishing exchanges from Ask The Experts.

Keep it coming.

We would not, of course, publish without the permission of all parties.

Stan
It was the " call yourself master" remark that seemed implicitly disparaging to me. Damn few builders of any stripe, except some of those fortunate enough to be part of a longstanding tradition & it's accumulated knowledge.
I believe part of the reason that people are drawn to timberframes is that as the world gets more high tech & impersonal ( ever long for a human being on the other end of a "service" phone call?) is that natural materials & their habits help re-connect people to the world.
As for GM I believe it was/is their arrogance that's bringing them down.
Different strokes for different folks. Most of the rest is hierarchical BS.
With all due respect, Scott

All:
This is an interesting discussion. To me it would appear that an highly skilled design and planning group could consult with specialty timber frame designers that are familiar with cnc production, engineered material limitations, metal connection options.
You wish to improve your perfectly produced and erected product and I applaud you for that.
That is after all what I continue to attempt on a daily basis.
Shelter is many things to many people and if we all sold the same thing choices would be a thing of the past.

If you provide employment as part of this endeavor (and you must) please consider the humans on the labor side as well as the consumer side.

Regarding your CPM and site tolerances: do you know what concrete tastes like and how your face feels after 8 hours in the sun? Have you experienced the fatigue that leaning into a 25 mph breeze all day trying to stay on schedule? Do you kow the joy of freezing rain or a nice dust storm with a crane on site?

I wish you well and believe we all will benefit from this dialogue.

Best regards,

Curtis

Oh and let's not forget another lesson from and because of Detroit: Low bidder capitalism does not work and quality sells itself.

Curtis

SRC,

I am curious to know more about your building system. More specifically the assembly process. Do you build wall, floor, and roof panels in the factory or is it built of single components on site in the time frame you described? It sounds like it must be somehow panelized. What size buildings are you generally producing?

Gabel

Gentlemen:

Here we go again.

Whit Holder posed interesting questions that I could take deep offense at since he essentially calls me a liar, but I won't. No Whit, the tolerances I mentioned are not CNC program tolerances, they are finished product tolerances. Yes, this is the real world. Yes, I have personally used micrometers and theodolites to confirm tolerances in the factory and the jobsite. The glulams we use are made in the most modern glulam factories in the world using fully automated four sided rotating presses, German 4 head planers with 12 blades per head, and fire-rated waterproof melamine adhesives. Should I apologize for that? Most of the wood comes from Scandanavia, a very interesting subject all by itself. These manufacturer's have strictly enforced QC programs. More importantly, my company, which is not a small one, has QC procedures in place in its own factories and jobsites to monitor and remedy the inevitable tolerance problems that creep in. Japanese clients are unreasonable about quality, and they check everything themselves. I am not exaggerating when I talk about 1/64" tolerances. You might find it interesting that the single largest obstacle to maintaining tolerances is sawdust, so cleanliness at the plant is very important. Some plants do better than others. Perhaps you will think me arrogant again? If so, remember that I am not talking about a traditional timber frame, but a consumer product. I am not asking you to buy it or even like it. It is just another building system, so please don't take offense. If you want to take the time, Whit, I can arrange for you to visit one of the plants in Japan next time your are in the country and you can confirm with your own micrometer if this is the "real world" or not.

The biggest obstacle to maintaining jobsite tolerances and schedule is one that every one of you that works in the field no doubt experiences frequently: concrete and AB's. I would greatly appreciate ANY ADVICE you gentlemen can share with me about how to deal with these problems in the US and Canada effectively.

Scott took offense at the words "call yourself master." Sorry Scott, you have it wrong. I wrote that "I would apologize and call you master" when all your joints were perfectly 90 degrees. This was in response to Emmett's taking offense because he interpreted my comments as disparaging traditional timber frames as not being precision made. Once again, my product is not a handmade frame, with handmade tolerances, but a factory produced consumer product. Apples and oranges, IMO.

I don't follow The first paragraph of Milton's comments, but I would very much like to understand it. Perhaps he would be kind enough to rephrase?

Every building is erected by people, Milton, so yes, a great deal of thought goes into the people involved, and their welfare. I suspect I am not grasping the entire meaning of your statement.

Regarding CPM schedules and site tolerances, and the rigors of the jobsite, let me explain my background. The men of my family have been carpenters since before the boat from England to North Carolina. My father has a degree in geology, but worked as a carpenter and jobsite superintendent his entire career. I worked as a laborer pulling nails out of concrete forms on his jobsites during summer break as a young boy (there was a time when such was possible). I completed the carpenter's apprentice program and became a union carpenter in Las Vegas, Nevada, where I grew up. I have worked on concrete, steel and wood buildings in the Nevada deserts in 120 degree temperatures facing 30 mph winds full of blowsand. I payed my own way through college (civil engineering) working as a self-employed carpenter and cabinetmaker on the Wasatch front where the weather can be very chilly and it snows, a lot. While a student, I designed and built two timber truss bridges for the Utah Forest Service, the first was 24 feet, and the other 64 feet. Both DF K trusses secured with M&T joints and white oak drawpegs, wide enough for two bulls to walk abreast, but not wide enough for a Ford Pinto (that should date it).

I received a masters degree in structural engineering from the University of Tokyo. I worked for a large general contractor in Tokyo for ten years, and participated in managing several projects in various locations in Japan. Subsequently, I worked as a project manager on construction projects in Guam, Bangkok, and London. I have worked as a project manager in the US for 15 years, the last five years in Ohio. So yes, I do know what it is like to work on the jobsite. I do know what it is like to create and then follow a CPM schedule. I do know the pain of a strained back working to lay roof sheathing in blowing snow. I have experienced true terror holding onto the brace of a tilt-up panel swinging from a walking crane in high winds, all the while praying to God fervently that the picking eyes won't pull out. You all have similar experiences, I am sure.

Milton's comment about GM and "low bidder capitalism" is interesting. I don't pretend to be an expert or have special knowledge, but while working in Ohio, I had the opportunity to work for Honda, Toyota, and suppliers to GM. This gave me the opportunity to speak in depth over months of time with former managers of GM and Ford, and with plant managers supplying products to GM and Ford from the factories I was working on. Based on the things I learned from these men, it would seem that low-bidder capitalism is not the problem, but rather dishonest abuse of suppliers, and disregard for quality when even a penny in profits can be realized. Very enlightening discussions about supply contracts. I feel sorry for the honest people at GM & Ford that suffer because of short-sighted management.

Gabel asked about panelization. In the case where the shear wall/exterior skin sheathing, roof, and floor sheathing and insulation needs to be installed along with the frame in the 1.5 days I mentioned, the panels are cut and wall insulation glued to the panels in the factory. They are not SIPs. Sometimes, however, clients want glass insulation, due to lower cost. This naturally extends the schedule, but the enclosure is completed on time nonetheless. It rains a lot in Japan, so quick, reliable enclosure is important. Of course, Japan has no monopoly on inclement weather, and the same features should be advantagous in the US.

The key to making all this work precisely as planned is careful planning. We have an AutoCad based design program that is linked to a structural design module and CNC module. It costs way too much money to make, but it works pretty well. After receiving dimensioned layout drawings from the architect, an operator typically spends four hours inputting data. This requires talent and experience. The program determines the member sizes and dimensions, and connectors to be used, and also performs the structural calcs and paperwork necessary for submittal automatically. It also creates the erection drawings, cutting list and specs automatically. The CNC data, also created automatically, is sent to the factory via the internet, where the parts are cut, usually in about 2 hours for a normal residence. Size can vary. The average size is around 1,400 sf, I think, but we have several regular retail and franchise restaurant customers that want bigger frames 6,000 sf plus. It depends. Two stories is most common, but three is not unusual.

The erection process is fascinating, but may be repulsive to many of the traditionalists in this forum. Most connections are made using metal connectors hidden in the members and secured with 13mm steel drift pins. There are some mortise and tenon joints used, mostly at wind columns, but these are usually added just for convenience in positioning and to make the carpenters that are accustomed to M&T joints feel comfortable, since M&T timber frames still make up the majority of residential wood construction in Japan.

Columns are erected first. Beams drop onto the connectors and are secured intially by gravity and the interlock of the pre-installed connectors and pins. The joints are locked in place by driving in a second drift pin at the beam. The ends of DPs are knurled for an interference fit, so once in place, they will not vibrate out. Roof frames go together using hidden steel plate connectors and DPs. Roofs are not usually true trusses, since traditional Japanese timber framing abhors connections in tension. Of course, you are all aware of the reasoning behind that logic. In any case, things go together very quickly and precisely.

The system is designed so that, in the case of the average house (commercial projects not included), two guys on ladders or scaffolding can erect all the parts. However, a truck crane is usually used, and indeed is necessary for the 1.5 day erection period I mentioned.

The last project I visited was in April, and was a large restaurant in Nasu Shiobara. It was erected by a first-time subcontractor using a hydro crane. The crew were veterans of many decades of fabricating and erecting traditional timber frames, and so all brought the usual tools: squares, chisels, slicks, planes, kakeya (large wooden mallets) and handsaws in anticipation of making jobsite adjustments. The only tools they actually used during erection (aside from levels, plumb bobs, and drills etc for dealing with naughty anchor bolts, "by others") was a hammer. Just a hammer, not a tape measure, not a square, not even a pencil, much less a chisel or saw. This is the real world. I have pictures if you want to see them. This first-time crew had nothing but positive things to say about the structure. Why not?: it was a beautiful, satisfying frame; it made them look very professional; they were finished ahead of schedule and under budget; and the client was pleased.

It is a very nice restaurant with exposed beams and columns made for an old customer. I think most people that love timber frames would like the appearance and atmosphere of the completed structure. Part of that is a result of the beauty of the gluelams which exhibit no purple gluelines, few knots, and are planed in the factory to a very shiny, luxurious (IMO) surface (German rotary planers, not fixed-blade "super finisher" machines). I suspect it was a little higher in cost per square meter than a stick-framed building with a concealed structure would have been, but not by much.

We think there is a market for this in the US. What do you think?

I really would like to hear your solutions for concrete and anchor bolts. Please.

Your most humble and obedient servant.

Stan

The best system I know of for placing those pesky anchor bolts precisely where the carpenter wants and needs them is the 'Hilti Epoxy Cigar' which is not a demented party favor, but a rather ingenious and inexpensive system that depends only on the carpenter's ability to follow directions; drill the right-sized hole in the right place, put in the stuff, wait the appointed length of time (temperature dependant) and voila; an engineered connection with published values for shear and withdrawal.

I do not sell this system, but I sure have bought a it of them over the years. In metropolitan jurisdictions, Hilti will deliver AND INSTALL, to code and engineering spec. Especially useful in seismic country.

Remember what Ram Dass always used to say: 'Better Living Through Chemistry'

Joel:

Thank you for your reponse. This is one solution we definitely plan to use. My strucutral engineer here in Southern California tells me that glass anchors (epoxy) such as those by Hilti can be used in California for residential applications. However, I know from experience that not all jurisdictions in all states permit their use without a PE stamp and in commercial applications at least, pullout tests. In other words, the extra cost and delay of epoxy anchors in some states may be problematic.

I have seen widgets in Simpon's catalog for positioning AB's in formwork. Have you used those?

What is the best way to get subs to put in the AB's properly the first time, or is it entirely impossible?

How best to ensure subs form and pour a level concrete face at the proper elevation to receive the bottom plate/sill?

Thanks,

Stan

Best way to get those anchors right where you want them, is, unfortunately, to do it yourself.

Every one of us has stories about concrete subs and the kinds of tape measures ('what are all those little marks for?) that they apparently carry.

This is of course an unfair indictment of an entire industry. I know from direct, tragic and expensive experience how difficult it is to to place AB receivers in precisely the right spots.

The Hilti guys (and again, I do not sell this stuff) have a terrific web site with design software and published values for all manner of mechanical fasteners in concrete, not just miracle epoxy. I think when installed to spec, no further engineering certification is required. Of couse, this means you have to buy the more expensive components (including anchor rod, washers and nuts) from Hilti. Still less expensive than designing each connection from scratch, and then getting it inspected.

I have also installed and interfaced with more than a few of the Simpson products, most notably the HPAHD22, which is designed to hook around the top course of rebar, and then is nailed (yes, it is primitive) to the non-visible (exterior?) face of the timber or gluelam column. Again, forgiving installation (you can bend it) and published performance values. Good stuff, and good company to deal with if you are needing some custom fabricated hardware. Not cheap, but why should it be?

Best way to get any sub (or General, or Architect) to perform to your standards? Be very clear about the standards, be willing to pay more than whatever the prevailing low bid per yard is, be willing to delay a job to tear out bad work, and be willing to commit to using the same sub over and over again, providing the standards are met (thereby amortizing your training expenses over more than one job).

PS You're not the first person who has had to ask Curtis to expand his comments. And you will not be the first person to discover that it is worth it.

HI Stan:
Your CV stands uncontested.
I am a carpenter.
If I was to try to fine tune a highly evolved sales, design, procurement, production, delivery, erection system and improve market sensitivity and share based on geographic cultural preference or perceived fashion I would integrate specialty consultants to your system.
Real estate development design and thematic design and timber frame design may not be in one person or firm so team building may be required.
Knowing what will sell and how best to sell it are also specialty trades.

Since capital must be satified the low bidder (often) dispenses with quality to make a bid which was calculated poorly. This only happens once in a good system but the damage is done. Abusing suppliers is the best way to eliminate qualified contractors that know what the work really costs.

Concrete: Specify reasonable tolerances based on field experiences and design your systems to accomodate this tolerance. Pay the price for the right contractor. Develop post-casting alignment systems that can be tuned to your tolerance.

AB: ditto. even if you place it yourself.

In my opinion.

Wishing you continued success.

Curtis

Stan,
Apparently you have some difficulty understanding our American English language as we practice it. If indeed we were reading your words as you apparently tried to phrase them then we would not have taken offense.
You seem to want to champion your new precision building system. Fine. What you have not divulged is it's cost compared to other methods.
You have expecially omitted any environmental considerations to answer the question " is it green " (translate envirionment friendly and made of renewable materials). Apparently it is made in Japan. As other world manufacturers have done in recent years is a plant coming to North America anytime soon ?
Most locales have or are in the process of adopting the IBC with few local "traps" for residential construction. If you can document that you exceed these standards then satisfying local permit folks and their inspectors should be a breeze.
The demand for new housing is a business environment the industry is hard pressed to satisfy with quality, durability, low maintenance and affordable cost. The green issue is very real in some locales by social pressure and regulation. Whether or not the fare paying public will be willing to spend for a manufactured product remains to be seen. Here come the marketing folks with their hype. Where else but in America can you purchase a 12oz can of liquid refreshment which has no nurtrional value of any kind ?
Good luck
deralte

Gentlemen:

Sorry if I gave offense: I think I have made it VERY CLEAR that none was intended. Several people in this forum have ignored the literal meaning of my words as plainly written, and chosen to interpret my words as implying denegration. Please reread.

Case in point. Emmett wrote "You have expecially omitted any environmental considerations to answer the question " is it green. " In fact, a careful review of the posts will clearly prove that NO ONE has asked that question. Let us review the relevant posts.

On 10/6 Jonathan posted this statement (it is not a question), the only one so far mentioning enironmental issues:

" At the end of the day housebuilding can be high volume assembling of characterless impersonal indentikit units, wasteful of materials and energy, working on short term fashion and profit goals. Or alternatively .... using or recycling materials that can be obtained from sustainable sources and not harmful to our environment and not demanding vast amounts of energy .."

Note that this is not a question; it is a statement. He did not solicit a response, but I did respond with the following: "Perhaps someone with professional industry expereince will take the time to enlighten him about the numbers? "

Sadly, no one on the forum has decided to take up the task of informing Jonathan. I do not have the time to explain the obvious. Moreover, there are mountains of published literature with hard, verifiable data by governments and private organizations around the world that plainly prove that mass production of wood products under responsible regulatory controls is more efficient and more "green" than other method. I am not interested in disputing this with people that have not done their homework. Ask the folks at BREEM or LEED, or Green Globes. In any case, please do not accuse me of "especially omitting any environmental considerations to answer the question " is it green " (translate envirionment friendly and made of renewable materials)." The question was simply not asked in previous posts, while the answer is available to anyone that looks for it.

In any case, the "green" issue is very important to us, and we intend to spend the time and money necessary to get our product certified. NAHB has a new system that seems less biased against wood products than LEED, so I think we will probably go with it. Anyone have experience with the various certification systems?

I have not compared costs with other methods in the US as of yet. Once again, the question has not been asked, even by Emmett (read his post). Moreover, product is not currently for sale in the US or Canada, so discussions about cost at this time would be premature.

In response to Emmett's direct question about a plant, yes, we already have precut machinary in the US, but it is not currently operating pending ICC-ES review of the connectors. In any case, we will open multiple plants in the US. We are also considering constructing a glulam factory in Canada.

Re IBC, as we intend to build our first structures in California, IBC compliance is not something that can be avoided. We have spent a lot of money having this issued researched by industry experts and have concluded that it will not be a problem. In fact, after ICC-ES review, we expect fewer difficulties with code compliance and local review than do traditional timber frame buildings currently experience in California (not exactly a hotbed for timber framing). I don't understand what the "traps" Emmett mentioned are, but I would appreciate clarification, since Emmett indicates that my understanding of "American English as we practice it" is so poor. Damn, I do hate being a retard....

Emmett's observation that "The demand for new housing is a business environment the industry is hard pressed to satisfy with quality, durability, low maintenance and affordable cost." is very true, in my opinion. Our research shows that the North American consumer is very different from the Japanese consumer in that the Japanese consumer is willing to pay extra money for a superior structural system, even if it is hidden behind drywall, whereas the typical consumer in North America is not. This is entirely consistent with my experience in Japan in high-rise, office and hotel construction also. In fact 90+ percent of our product sold in Japan is entirely concealed behind finishes regardless of the beauty of the wood. Interestingly, I was recently told that more and more clients are requesting design changes during construction to expose the frame upon seeing the wood before finishes are applied.

I assume that the people in this forum that actually sell timber frames (instead of just pontificate about them) get few requests from consumers to hide the frame, but instead experience more cases where their clients demand to have the frame exposed. Anyway, there are cultural differences that will need to be dealt with, but nothing that has not been done before in other industries.

I have no doubt that the North American consumer is willing to pay for what Emmett calls a "manufactured product." They do it every day and in every way. In fact, I believe that traditional timber frames are harder to sell than my product, simply based on cost and construction time and hard data. After all, more tract houses are sold in NA than any other type, but most of those are horrific cookie-cutter mass produced units. But how many timber framers do you know that have the systems and horsepower to build 30,000 custom post & beam units?

I came to this forum to help find an architect because it was recommended to me. Instead of finding an architect, some, like Emmett, seem to expect me to "sell it" and defend it. BS. I have been contacted by some professional timber framers (yes, there are businessmen that make and sell timber frames that are interested in selling a product that can be erected and enclosed in 1.5 days, costs less than a traditional timber frame in materials and labor for the same floorplan, and that any PE can easily specify and any building department review), but I do not expect a single soul in this forum to buy, use, or even like my product, so I have ZERO interest in promoting it to you. I have simply answered questions, but most those have nothing to do with finding an architect. Cut me a break.

Stan

stan,
I've read this thread through a few times now, and wanted to write in a say that I appreciate the time you take to write your posts.... It may be easier to write more on a "hot" topic but all the same it's good to see someone who is really following up on thier post(many folks ask a question and then disappear....) The topic is out of my knowlege range, being a canadian and only recently back into traditional timberframing, perhaps the polar opposite of what you're doing.... so I've learned a bunch reading what you've written. Some of your content is a bit on the sharp side, but there is plenty of information there and again I appreciate the diversity you present to the forum. Good luck on that architect.

Mark:

Thank you for your kind words. Good luck in your endeavors. May your saw cut cut straight and your chisel never chip.

Stan

Stan:

I am both an Architect and a part-time Timber Framer. 23 years in private practice, licensed in Texas and New Mexico. My knowledge of the applicable building codes and laws affecting single family (I assume you are talking about single family homes) housing in California is limited but I might be able to assist you in some way. Feel free to contact me.

Bruce Thacker

Stan,
Hey, we are beginning to communicate, eg information and understanding are flowing in both directions.
RE the traps issue you must also consider that some states and local regulatory agencies have adopted a "protect the consumer at all costs" attitude which makes it almost impossible to gather a reasonable construction for profit company and keep it alive. Ask the guys from Texas about recent state law changes.
Many well intended "new" regulations do not consider the limitations and practicability of systems/materials. These limits place a guarranty burden on the builder which implies everything will last forever. I once had an experience on a public project with more than one boss which ended up creating a theater (read barn) which computed to accomodate a 4' snowload, a force 5 hurricane and a richter siesmic event of scale 6.5 concurrently. How unreal is that ? This, on investigation, was fostered by the local community authorities paranoid about being sued and not being able to afford the insurance premiums. Finding balance between what can be done and what regulations seem to require is a constant challenge.
What are you going to call your high precision custom designed manufactured homes ?
If the cost to build can be kept down you just may have a market to satisy local community affordable housing targets.
good luck.

Thanks for the insight about traps. Most popular building systems can deal with such forces if enough time and money is spent, but the costs of design and construction would probably kill interest in the private sector, unless the upside was pretty high. Sounds like you were dealing with a community that really didn't want the project.

I don't know about Texas, but the risk management experts I have hired to help me in California have made it clear that fear of litigation, and the resulting ridiculously high insurance rates, rather than a desire to protect the consumer, is what drives many seemingly unreasonable construction decisions.

I think we will have a leg up in this regard compared to traditional timber frame building systems once we obtain the approvals we are working to secure. FYI, part of getting our system approved (actually "listed" is the term of art) by ICC-ES (formerly ICBO) for use in the US is extensive analysis by structural engineers to ensure compliance with NDS standards, and destructive testing by independent certified laboratories. In addition, QC manuals from all manufacturers involved must be submitted and approved, eliminating most manufacturer's products from even qualifying for consideration. After ICC-ES listing, product liability insurance can be had for only a medium-sized fortune. The other advantage to obtaining ICC-ES listing is that structural engineers unaccustomed to designing post&beam with mortice & tenon etc. connections can confidently select the appropriate connector to handle the loads they calculate at a joint using a simple table, in the same way they would specify a Simpson joist hanger, for instance. They don't need a lot of experience with timber-frame connnections to make sound decisions quickly and with with confidence, and their E&O insurance rates won't go up if their insurance company finds out they are designing "antique connections" (not my term). Likewise, the plan review guys at the city can use published literature to easily check that the connections are specified correctly, knowing the product has been reviewed by acknowledged experts and is covered by product liability insurance.

In any case, we hope to avoid many of the problems your message suggested, but I doubt we will be able to sidestep all of them.

Re the name of the product, it is called MetalFit in Japan and was marketed for a time (foolishly without thought for product liability concerns) as MasterFit in the US. I am not certain what the final name will be. A google search will lead you to the relevant websites.

re costs, I am currently researching relative costs, a job that is a lot of work if one desires any real accurate comparison. Affordable housing is one type I am currently looking at, but things don't look good at the moment in light of the crushing politics and low quality standards involved. Things look better in upper-median range housing, where cash-flow vs erection time becomes important, and politics less so. In the semi-custom home arena, things look really good. This suits my company well because it is willing to spend it's own money to buy raw land and use its own products in its own projects.

Please guys, don't flame me for writing this: I am not pretending it is better than a timber frame: it is an entirely different product, and one that and will not even appeal to the folks that buy traditional timber frames.

Stan

Good afternoon Stanley old chap
I never slandered you or your houses. You never made it clear initially they were custom one off designs. For a builder/developer to refer to his 30,000 creations as "units" just led me (wrongly as it turns out) to assume they were "Characterless impersonal identikit units..." etc etc. Too many modern houses are that way now.
Anyway, my genuine apologies mate if I apeared to fly off the handle. (Sorry you didnt like my joke either but then not everybody shares the same sense of humour).
I know it bugs you to be asked a lot of questions, but please bear with me. Do you really believe in the integrity and robustness of so-called quality control systems? I used to work for a big American owned manufacturing company. The Chairman was RICH I mean forbes RICH; he payed lousy wages, wouldnt even invest in reliable machinery, insisted on cheapo crappo materials. They were suposed to have all that quality control/assurance ISO stuff in place. In my opinion it was really only there to impress buyers from the BIG house building companies when they came a calling. DOES bribery ever come into it, or have I been over cynicised by the effects of global capital on my world view ?
PS It was my disilusionmant with the global capital profit is god mentality that propmted me to find a less stressful and more rewarding way of living the rest of what remains of my life. That is why I decided to learn (later in life than most), to be a joiner.
Cheers, Jonathan

Jonathan:

No apology necessary.

The concerns you have with QC systems are absolutely valid, IMO. Yes, at worst, they are no more than lip service, intended to deceive the foolish and inexperienced. But not all are bad.

The best QC procedures require bonds, third party verification, and unannounced inspections. But yes, corruption can derail even the best QC program. Your old boss is not alone in using bribes to subvert proper QC procedures, but we would be rash to assume that all men, and by extension all QC programs, are likewise corrupt. It seems you had a very unpleasant experience in the corporate world. Sadly, too few corporations have QC programs aimed at improving senior management, and governments are notably ungoverned.

I would guess that only a minuscule percentage of the people that seek to have a timber frame house made nowadays know much about what goes into making one. Joe Blow thinks that wind is something people did to clocks before Duracell; that a tusk tenon is a kind of walrus tooth; and that a lamb's tongue is something he might eat at a Turkish restaurant. Acknowledging his ignorance, he may study a bit, but in the end he must find A MAN THAT HAS MASTERED A SUCCESSFUL PROCESS AND HAS PROVED OVER TIME (reputation) THAT HE IS WILLING AND ABLE TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS WITHOUT CUTTING CORNERS. I suppose one finds such a man, or group of men, by asking around, reading the magazines, or searching on the web. Of course, he will inspect houses built by candidates, and ask knowledgeable friends for their advice. Perhaps he will ask to see contractor licenses, guild membership or apprenticeship completion certificates. If he is careful, and lucky, and spends enough time in his search, he may find the craftsman he seeks.

In answer to your question, yes I do have faith in SOUND QC systems, as far as they go. But don't read too much into that. QC procedures are simply evidence that a group of men know what should be done to achieve minimum quality standards. It is not a guarantee that those procedures are the best way to achieve those standards, nor is it a guarantee that they will execute those procedures consistently. The purchaser/consumer must confirm quality independently (often costly and inefficient on any significant scale over a long period of time), or trust in reliable organizations with specialized knowledge to confirm it for him. ISO is one such organization. ICC is another. When manufacturers, inspection organizations, or their employees succumb to corruption, accreditation is revoked, they receive criminal retribution, hopefully, and the reputation of everyone involved is destroyed. What better options are there on the industrial scale?

Henry Disston's advice in 1850 to craftsmen looking for a good handsaw (the most difficult of all hand tools to make properly) was to buy from a manufacturer with a reputation to lose. This is wise advice even today. A good, consistent craftsman knows that quality does not happen by accident: he will have QC procedures in place, even if he doesn't call them QC, and he will be anxious to protect his reputation. A manufacturer too is a group of craftsman, of varying skills and experience that rely on organizational structures to keep everyone moving toward the same goals. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the most successful manufacturers have found that an organized QC program, based on careful analysis and documentation of those procedures found effective in keeping their clients happy, is a good tool for building a better reputation. In the world of today, it may be witty for a band of retro macramé artists to scoff at QC, but not a large manufacturer that wants to stay in business. A painful example from the last century: Toyota, Nissan and Honda learned Dr. Deming's lessons well, and then, sadly, taught them to GM and Ford the hard way.

Re profits as God. I feel sorry for people that allow themselves to get caught in that trap. In my experience, wealthy people are terribly miserable, but they don't even know it.

I wish you health and happiness. May your muntins and astragals never meander.

Stan

Hi Stan:
I am always interested in a better product, a chance to make money, interesting designs, green stuff and all that you seem to have in place.
However I am also interested in how this discussion came to take place in the Tool Forum.

Sure makes for good reading,
Curtis

I had wondered the exact same thing as well
What sort of old tools de ye have Stan, and do you ever get chance to use them at all? When you say your folks sailed from England, how far back ago? Covington sounds like an "owlde eynglyshe" type of name. Could be some of your ancesters built some of the frames I was looking at in Suffolk last week.
Cheers Jonathan

Gentlemen:

I was directed to this forum by the managers of the Timber Framing Guild as a result of a web search.

My Grandmother did the geneology, and my brother followed it up in England decades later. Two Covington brothers came to South Carolina around 1720 (I don't recall the exact date) apparently from the Manchester area. The Covington men kept marrying English immigrant women right off the boat (or at least born in England) for many generations afterwards, so my biological links to England are strong and wide. When stationed in Germany, my younger brother visited England and the old churches and libraries where he confirmed the tradition of carpentry. The old English churches kept ledgers of payments to tradesmen, and many of those had been transferred to microfiche and are available to the public. I don't know about the Suffolk frames Jonathan mentioned, but apparrently the old boys did a lot of religious carpentry work.

Covington is indeed an English name, although there are many theories about the origin, some viking via Ireland and others Anglo-saxon, and others having something to do with a tribe that lived in a settlement by a cave (cave=cuffa). Idduno.

As to old tools, I have an good collection of antique saws, mostly US, some British, some Japanese. When I lived in Japan, I had twenty or so custom chisels made for me, and I purchased a lot of planes and saws, and even an adze (I have never used it, but it is cool). The Japanese have a deep love of sharp things, and do a great job of making them.

Of course, I have all the usual carpentry tools, as well as an Inca 12" tablesaw, and a 10" Inca combination jointer/planer, chopsaw, drill press, and a full compliment of hand-held power tools. I use them evenings and weekends to make doors, furniture and remodel the house. I also have a side business making furniture samples. My wife and I came to an agreement: if she keeps silent about the sawdust and the pounding in the basement (she calls it the "temple of testosterone"), I won't complain about the frilly drapes she insists on hanging everywhere.

For what its worth.

Stan

Wow....this sure grew legs whilst I was gone

I just spent two weeks in Japan and am digesting some of the information here in light of what I have seen.
While much of the carpentry I saw was superlative (temples, shrines) some was decidedly more functional esp as relates to finish. And Stan is quite right about repairs, any older structure(as in not rebuilt recently) shows repair. The older buildings showed another wood characteristic as well, movement
150+yr old joints show their age.
The commonality I see in these posts is that everyone here is passionate about what they are doing. To me that is the most important thing and passionate people have passionate "discourse"

Thanks Stan for not taking your ball and going home. I learned some interesting things from this little chat

J.E.B.

Hi Stan:
Well I can imagine that the staff or executive directors of the Timber Framers Guild sent you to the ask the experts Bulletin Board but I would have thought that another division of this venue might have been chosen.

I have enjoyed the discourse but I feel that many more folks would read your request for assistance if you chose another thread. I am not trying to get you to move on, just wondering if you had looked at other possibilities?

Best regards,
Curtis

Wow... what a trip this forum is...
I've logged on quite a time after the fact, but still, it's entertaining and enlightening.
I wish you all the luck with your search, Stan, and thank all the others for the good advice - out of chaos comes order, they say!
My only personal quam is the use of the words 'guys', 'men', 'group of men', etc.
Being a woman in the feild, I am, of course, used to this. But seeing what a hot topic this particular forum has become I felt it a good oppourtunity to throw in a little PC. Carry on as you are, just be aware that there's at least one female hangin' around these parts!

Thanks! T.G.

Dear TG:

Just returned from a long business trip and saw your comment today (12/12/05).

I must beg your pardon: I did not realize that there were any Goddess-types in the forum. No offence intended.

May your grain never runout!

Stan

Gentlemen and Goddesses:

I wanted to provide an update on some interesting activities in Japan that might support Jonathan's previous post about his concerns with quality control and abuse thereof.

About the middle of last month, the same day I arrived in Tokyo, in fact, the news media began screaming about concrete "mansions" (RC concrete condos) that had construction defects resulting from 'forged" structural calculations. Apparently, a structural engineer named Aneha had, over a number of years, submitted falsified structural calculations for the design of several tens of buildings in the Tokyo area, including hotels and high-rise reinforced concrete condominiums. He may or may not have been pressured by the contractor and/or developer. Lots of finger pointing in progress.

The result of this falsification was the reduction in the quantity of rebar such that the "experts of the moment" say a building that must withstand a magnitude 7 quake would fail during a 3-5 quake. The first hint of the problem was sagging balconies and unusual cracking. Many people have moved out of their condos in fear for their lives. Three hotels had shut down as well. No buildings in question have actually failed.

The QC issue in all this is that the fact that the government had delegated its responsibility for checking the structural calcs to private companies in order to speed up review/approval time. The parties that should have checked the falsified calcs failed to do so adequately, it is said. Pretty poor QC.

Consequently, hundreds of existing buildings approved under this system are being rechecked for adequacy, and buildings currently under review have been put on hold. The chaos has delayed many building schedules, and is expected to shut down large-scale construction in the Tokyo area for the near future.

My company does a great deal of RC mansion condo development in the Tokyo area, but the services of this structural engineer and the problematic contractor where not employed on any of them. However, new sales have stopped dead, and prices are expected to fall horribly as smaller, weaker developers without the resources to endure for long, go bankrupt and their stock comes onto the market at fire-sale prices.

So here we see an actual case of established QC procedures easily circumvented for the most disgusting of purposes putting human lives at risk and damaging, through association, the reputation of all the members of at least three honorable professions. Were there bribes involved? I don't know, but the potential motives appear limited.

For what it is worth.

SRC

Stan,
I've read this thread with interest. It's good to see the spirited discussion it has inspired. But-- have you had any luck finding your architect? I'd like to speak with you about your projects if you are interested.
My experience is with residential design. I've been working in the timber frame industry for 15 years. I have some familiarity with the connection system you describe, and I'm intrigued.

My apologies to the other readers of this board for the gratuitous commercial post.

Andrea Warchaizer
Springpoint, Inc
23 Comstock Rd
Alstead, NH 03602
603-835-2433
springpt@sover.net