Besides, you wouldn't want some sort of walls and windows that needed to be
waxed like those screens, would you??  Ruth, who wouldn't know what to do
with an architect if she had one.




At 10:14 PM -0500 1/7/05, [log in to unmask] wrote:
In a message dated 1/7/2005 9:27:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

So why do we require an architect of 2004 to add a bedroom to a
non-architect building of 1770?    c

As Fitch used to say (sort of), on the level of civil liberties, you don't.

There are a couple of reasons.  First of all, you want it designed so that
it doesn't sink into the sand or blow away in the next middling breeze. It
would also be good if it's built on your lot, within setbacks, and not
overhanging your neighbor's property by 2", and therefore has to be
demolished. Second of all, most homeowners would probably be better off
having somebody who knows more than they do who can keep a knowledgeable
eye on the contractor and be sure it's built the way it was designed, and
not out of cardboard and string (or Dryvit, because it's just as good as
string and cardboard, but it's guaranteed).

Theoretically you will get a better design job by choosing an architect who
is accustomed to working with 1770's houses, and to adding to 1770's houses
than you would get by having the Anderson window salesman choose the sizes
(and types) of your windows (you get more light out of those nice big
picture bow windows than out of crappy little divided light windows, and
besides the commissions are better) , and by having the carpenter decide
where to locate them.

But as I said, you go ahead and screw everything up, and then come tell us
all about it.

Ralph

--
Ruth Barton
[log in to unmask]
Dummerston, VT

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>