will work for roses - The gables in the front will cost more than not having any gables in the front, but any house over 2000 sq.ft. and on two levels will "need" a few gables and "juts/cuts" in the roof line or it will look very awkward in my personal opinion. I will tell you that of some of the more complex plans, the O'Neal is a fairly medium to medium-high complexity for the roof and foundation layout compared to other homes with similar curb appeal in my opinion. Many builders would tell you that it will be too expensive to build, but that's a relative term. There are 18 corners in the foundation which isn't all that many for a house this size when you compare it to say the "Harmony Mountain Cottage" plan by Garrell & Associates which has over 30 foundation cuts in a 2300 sq.ft. design (see it here: http://houseplans.designsdirect.com/disp_pic.asp?sf=GAR%2Frenderings%2F06110FrntRndrng1.jpg&planid=5995&planName=Harmony+Mountain+Cottage&viewName=First+Floor+Plan&filename=GAR/floorplans/06110FrstFlrPln1_f.gif). You can easily have more than 20 in a 1500 sq.ft. house if you start picking out plans that have tremendous curb appeal. Another higher cost in this plan will likely be the hipped roof design versus a traditional gabled end design, but that debate is one that should be saved for another day b/c a gabled roof and a hipped roof have two very distinctly different looks and it all depends on what "look" you want overall for the house. I personally would like the O'Neal and Luxembourg much much less if it were a traditional gabled end roof design. Anyways, I'll move on from that. I would say look into roof trusses and see if the truss company your builder uses (if they even use them at all) can truss the roof you want as it will save you money and time versus traditional framing and you can use attic room trusses in a lot of instances and what can't be trussed can then be stick framed on site by your framing crew. As for the potential savings, I look at it this way: your garage gables are going to be the same on almost all plans (some may only have one large gable, but adding the 2' bumpout doesn't add that much to the cost of building, at least not enough to not do it on a house like this as the added appeal is well worth it in my opinon.) So far so good! You'll also likely have another small gable like the one over the bathroom window on the O'Neal somewhere on the plan, so still no real additional costs. The gable over the front second level bedroom is going to be there on almost all two story plans that have a bedroom over the dining room or else they look very funny. Even if no bedroom on the front of the house in the second level you'll likely still have a couple of dormers or one large oversized gable highlighting the two story foyer. Still not going above and beyond in my opinion. The large columns and the additional gable/pitch over the entry is the "knock-out-punch" on the O'Neal and Luxembourg plans and if you lose those you change the entire appeal of the house. Yes, it will cost you more than not doing it, but to tell you how much it costs would be nearly impossible. Your builder will be the one to ask based on your finishing materials. It would really still be a "it depends" answer. B/c it depends on if you do the columns in stone and the exact way the plan calls for like in the Luxembourg_southmountain.." photo in the link I posted above, or if you buy pre-assembled columns made from pvc or other similar material like the ones in the picture of my friends house that is labeled "December_17...". The front entry my friend built will likely cost a good deal less than the other, but he spent a good bit on the real stone for the front, which is awesome and so he hasn't really sacrificed the look by doing the pre-made columns. I just think it's important to keep overall scale in mind when choosing the columns b/c you can make a big house look very awkward very fast by changing the scale of important features like these bold front entry columns. You could always lose the arched window over the front door that illuminates the grand foyer and reduce the height of the arched gable over the front door to save money, but without drawing that out I wouldn't be able to tell you that would look okay, although I'm sure it would still look nice. If I were building this house, I'd keep the big archway above the door just like it is, not just for exterior looks, but for the massive impact it has from the inside as well. The back of the O'Neal house will always need to have the gable where the bedroom is on the second level because there is no other way to get the bedroom in without adding the additional roof clearance in the gable. The additional bump-out for the great room could be squared off to match the rear wall in the master bedroom and breakfast nook, etc. if you wanted to take out that gable to save some money. You would also take out some of the grand windows in the rear of the great room, which also makes this plan so great, but if you don't have people gazing at the rear of your house all day, every day then you may not care. As I mentioned, he lives on the tee box of a nice golf course and so more people see the rear of his house than the front so that wasn't really an option. One way you could essentially reduce some of the cost to build this and up/meet your sq.ft. requirements would be to square off the back of the house by adding another couple of feet to the master bedroom and breakfast nook, additional main level bath and back bedroom/garage if you needed more width in garage, etc. and that would remove 2 corners in your foundation (save a little $$$) and also remove the additional gable and siding that goes on it, painting the siding or the cost of stone if you were to stone it like my friend did, etc. which would also save $$$. It wouldn't be enough to justify building this plan if you were $25k off, but each little bit you can make a little easier will help you get your costs in line. One more thing I noticed in his plan is that he has additional unfinished and un-floored attic space over his master bedroom and master closet area because he did a tray ceiling like the plan calls for in the master bedroom. If you were to nix the tray ceiling or start with the 9' ceiling in the center and build the tray down to 8' on the sides versus the traditional way its done of starting with 9' on the outsides and building up to 10' in the middle you could have additional sq.ft. above the master that otherwise would be wasted. You already have the roof, foundation, primary wiring ran, ductwork to master, etc that you could easily tie into and add cheaper sq.ft. to get you to your goal. You would have more carpeting and sheetrock and lighting, painting, wiring, and may need a little more "uumph" in you HVAC unit for the added space which would add, but those are the cheaper things in the total cost of adding square footage. Just something to keep in mind. It wouldn't be an enormous room because of the hipped roof line, but it would add more that is otherwise unused or some might say wasted. I'm also linking to another great Gardner plan called the Newcastle that has an awesome "overall look & appeal" in my opinion and I would consider it a milder roof and foundation design with only 12 corners in the foundation (I didn't count the window boxes either since you can cantilever the bumpout/window-boxes if you chose to instead of building the foundation around them). The Newcastle looks great inside as well and has pictures on the site you can look at. It takes advantage of the additional attic space under the gabled roof versus the hipped roof on the O'Neal upstairs and has bedrooms on opposite sides of the upper landing versus all on one side like the O'Neal which is also why you don't need the additional gables on the front & rear of the house like in the O'Neal, but like I said earlier, you still have the two dormers on the front, but not as much as that larger gable dormer & entrance archway. Again, saving $$$!! I hope this isn't info overload, but hey, you asked!!! Here is a link that might be useful: View Newcastle Plan

SIPs, ICF, modular, log and all other types of 'non-stick' built construction are all allowed under the 2006 International Residential Code, and the alternative energy compliance methods you mentioned allowed under the associated 2006 International Energy Conservation Code. Just because these Codes may not specifically address some of these methods and techniques you mentioned does not mean they cannot be used. They can be submitted for approval as engineered or performance based systems. Such alternative structural and energy methods must be designed by an architect or engineer, however, and the design documents required as part of the submittal package for your building permits. Although these types of alternative methods may not be 'standard', they are not uncommon, and should pose no obstacle to getting permits with the proper design documentation.

You could also look into manufactured housing, depending on what constraints in design you may be willing to live with....typically they have a limit on the width of the "boxes" as well as the length so they can be transported. The savings comes from the very rapid assembly of the structure. And being factory built and designed for transport, they tend to be very square (right angles are right angles) and very sound homes. There's less materials wastage and the house is protected from the weather at all times.

Good move. After all it's probably a healthy six figures of your hard earned money on the line with tough recourse after closing. The home inspector should be your "hired gun", a professional that's representing you. And the issue of liability should be a motivator for him/her to go over your house with a fine tooth comb and alert you to any deficiencies or code violations, both major and minor. Haven't heard of any automatically passing everything. After all if they miss something the obvious question for you to them is "That's why I hired you!!", so there's liability and a professional responsibility to use "due care" there. Same for me when I size a beam. I'm an architect and I've hired them for my own homes myself. It gets around the "my opinion vs. your opinion" thing. And you look far more credible with a hired gun writing an official report for you as opposed being armed with a bunch of varying opinions from "random people on the internet" as Jann. noted. It shows your serious about fixing ALL deficiencies both known and unknown to you, and I'm figuring there's a bunch of the latter. After all, all you're asking for is a code compliant house constructed to the terms of your contract and normal construction standards, a perfectly reasonable expectation.