For reference: A branch attached to the trunk is a primary (first order) branch. Branches attached to first order branches are secondary (second order), and tertiary (3rd order) branches are attached to second order branches. For 1 and 3, cut all primary secondary, tertiary branches back to 2 leaves. If there are only 1 or 2 leaves on a branch, allow those branches to grow until the 3rd leaf is opening, then pinch/prune the branch back to 2 leaves. This helps 'chase' foliage back closer to the trunk. It might need to be repeated later to force additional back-budding. You do not want sections of branches to be bare before there are leaves. Leaves should start as close to the trunk as possible so your tree becomes compact. Where the 2 branches (one large & 1 small) originate at the same point on the trunk, eliminate the small branch entirely. Branch 2, the leader should be cut back to a leaf that will produce a branch growing in a favorable direction; usually, that would be a branch that grows back toward a point directly vertical to the point where the trunk exits the soil. FWIW, you can change the order of a branch by pruning it. We can see this branch ^^^ was pruned at some point, by the little dried up stub that remains. So originally, this was a branch of any given order with 3 branches of the next higher order growing from it. Because of that pruning, ^^^ the branch the pencil points to immediately above changed to a higher order, for all intents and purposes, and, the branch now has movement. So through sequential pruning, I can make this branch with a pronounced tendency to produce arrow-straight shoots, to a branch that grows in a zig zag pattern. Same cutting ^^^, stub removed, but now we have a branch of a given order with only 2 branches of the next higher order (instead of 3), even though I didn't remove any branches. The main branch will back-bud now, which will allow me to prune this branch back even shorter, which is what I meant about chasing foliage back closer to the trunk. Al

"The trench would be about 7 feet deep and 1 foot wide, thus, the average depth of the coil would be about 5 feet." This tells me that they would install a vertical Slinky, probably with a backhoe. A chain trencher, 'Witch Ditch' would probably be narrower than 1 foot wide and would be a faster install, unless soil conditions do not permit this technique. Avg. depth of 5 feet could mean that the loops are 4 feet in diameter meaning the top of the loop may be only 3 feet below the surface. If this is so, then this may not ideal. Top of the loop should be at least 4 feet deep (minimum) or deeper. Digging should be contracted to someone with the right equipment (chain trencher, 'Witch Ditch'). Even then this may be less than ideal in that it's harder to flush a vertical slinky (standing up) than a horizontal slinky (laying flat) in that any trapped air will reside at the tops of these vertical loops. This trapped air could be a serious impediment to liquid flow as it may form an air lock thus shortening or short-circuiting the entire loop. Bottom line in plain English, it will work - if properly designed, installed, purged and FLUSHED! SR

Simpler terms of what Jake says above ... A 30 amp 125 volt circuit (if that's really what you have) on your current water heater can provide 3,750 watts, figure 3,000 sustained continuous wattage available per the 80% rule. If it's (probably) really a 30 amp 240 volt circuit then the capacity is 7,200, or 5,700 continuous watts available. 36,709 watts (yes, thirty-six thousand seven hundred watts) is required for the tankless water heater per Jake's calculations to instantaneously raise the temperature of 55°F incoming water to 105°F for 2.5 gals per minute flow on each of two simultaneous showers. That's a 192 amp (say 200 amp) 240 volt circuit per the 80% rule. Just. For. The. Water. Heater. You may not need quite that much heating capacity in real usage (if you run the showers at lower flow), or you may need more capacity for higher temperatures on multiple tasks or lower than 55°F incoming water supply ... but either way it's still much more power than you're apparently understanding, so, no, your existing electric circuit to your tank water heater cannot support a tankless unit of sufficient heating capacity. My electric tankless on a 120 amp 240 volt circuit has been fine for 17+ years but I'm a one-person household, run my shower lower than 2 GPM by habit, and rarely run shower and/or dishwasher and/or clothes washing at the same time. Whether you can upgrade that circuit to support a tankless water heater depends on the details of the total available power supply to your condo, and space in the existing breaker box, and your budget.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread...So make way for me. So I know very little about the specifics of this subject but I have a blot of experience with the agency problem. I think the truth is that you guys are probably both right. Design build firms certainly will have a conflict of interest that doesn't exist in the design-bid-build model. Essentially, design build firms are nothing more than backward or forward vertical integration of the building process (depending whether contractor led or architect led.) The problem with backward or forward vertical integration is that by definition it is limiting. As a contractor you are tying yourself to a few architects or designers who have in turn tied themselves to you. Now all this sounds really bad, but in truth it is really good for a lot of consumers. Vertical integration produces synergy which cuts down on time and produces efficiencies which convert to dollar savings. You will get a house faster and cheaper, holding everything else equal. The problem is that everything else is not always held equal. A design build firm will certainly build the same house cheaper but they do not necessarily build the same house. In fact, I would be very surprised if any design build firm didn't frequently supersede the owner's desires with their effeciencies. Again, that may be a good thing for a typical buyer, but atypical buyers would not be serviced as well by design build firms. It is impossible to achieve goal alignment for clients who want items that are inefficiencies for the builder. When goal alignment doesn't exist people will maximize their benefit to the detriment of others. In other words they will usually do what is better for the firm. I think what Renovator was getting at was that for the typical client who cares about money and time, design build firms are good. However, for the atypical client (which he identified as clients spending more money, but I identify as clients who simply are not concerned about the relative cost) a traditional design-bid-build would be preferred. Having said all that, using non residential construction is not really comparable to residential construction. First, because many multi-family and commercial projects will come with more specifics, and more importantly commercial really isn't design-build, it is closer to bid-design-build. Your competitive bidding and protection of consumers comes prior to the acceptance of the job. Finally, because I haven't typed enough already, just because architects benefit from saying that clients need an agent doesn't make it not true. Clients will absolutely benefit from someone in their corner but may not benefit enough to make doing it reasonable. Which brings us to the second point, having already hired and paid the designer in this case there was no reason not to keep them. Letting them go can't help and keeping them might.