Right. That's a decent budget (depending on area.) You would think they could work with that.

I'm in Utah looking to build in a mountain development near Park City (technically within Park City limits but not in the expensive old town area). It's in close driving distance to the Salt Lake City center.

The lot is an up slope wooded lot with a lovely view of the mountains. The overall design is a massive 3 car wide x 2 car deep garage under (where I'm sure the majority of the cost is) with the main single living level above. The above single level main living is about 2500 sq ft though we only asked for about 2000 sq feet main area. The lower level has some extra rooms (storage, exercise, mechanical, mud room) and is about 800 sq ft. Again we didn't ask for 800 sq feet below. We asked for a storage room and an exercise room which he designed much larger than we requested. The main level has 1 master bedroom and ensuite bathroom and 2 smaller bedrooms with 1 guest bathroom between. There is an open living area in the middle with a nice kitchen (not massive, but certainly not small), dining area, and living area. No breakfast nook, no extra formal living room or study or library or powder room. There is also a laundry on that top main level. The whole design is 3400 sq ft of "livable" space. The basement will be partially unfinished (no flooring, probably no trim, maybe drywall or maybe just framed and insulated). We do have a front deck (uncovered) and staircase (covered) and a rear covered cement patio.

We are absolutely willing to decrease sq ft. And while my husband is extremely saddened, I think there is a high probability we will need to substantially shrink his massive garage. The part that confuses me is that we were 100% up front about the large garage from the very beginning and we even added columns in the design process (which we originally did not want) to reduce the cost. I think our frustration and confusion come from being extremely clear up front (even producing our own 3D rendering and floor plan ideas before signing any contracts) and every time the designer said "you can't afford that" we gave in and accepted his suggestion. Yet here we are obscenely over budget anyway.

While we are devastated that we find ourselves in this dilemma, we are willing to do what it takes to compromise and get a plan that we can build. It has been very helpful to hear stories and suggestions on just how we can move forward to figure out where we need to compromise.

Let's see...3 cars wide X 2 cars deep = oh, say, 36' wide by 40' deep = 1,440 SF. And there's a exercise room, mud room, storage room, mechanical--say another 600 SF, for a total of around 2,00-2,100 SF excavated into an uphill slope, with retaining walls on perhaps 3 sides. That might the place to start looking...

With that basement garage - thats a big house. I am not surprised at the pricing at all - and Park City isn't cheap.

I am in NC, which is probably not as expensive as park city, and my basement garage is 1800 sq feet and I have 3300 in a story and a half above that (probably not too dissimilar to what you are building?) and my house will sell for WELL over $500k - in fact - we spend $440k 20 years ago building this one.

Your $850k would seem to be about what I would have expected.

So, a 1.5M house? What was your expectation as to budget? And are you dealing with builders who usually build to that level, or a higher or lower level build?

Edit: Oh, I see it's only 850K. Hmmm. I'd say that is insanely cheap for that program, in that location, with those challenges. Too good to be true in fact. Jannicone's 440K is now 672K, and she didn't have to excavate a hill in an expensive resort community.

I'm very sorry for your experience.

Estimating costs without a reasonably detailed plan as the basis is pretty tough---guesses would be the best case-- and the most credible, of course, is invariably the lowest "guess." The cost data architects and designers have is both backward looking and specific to particular homes constructed on particular lots. With construction costs increasing over time, and the differences from plan to plan, their cost database is not all that useful. Stated otherwise, it's pretty difficult to keep up with construction costs even if your full time job is estimating and paying invoices and architects don't do that!

In my experience, value engineering a plan will produce, at best, a 10% cost reduction without the need to alter the plans so much that they don't look like the plan you fell in love with. If the difference between budget and estimated cost to construct is greater than 10%, you're better off starting over from a clean sheet of paper. I appreciate the emotions that go with that.

The difference between your intended budget and builder estimates is significant enough that your designer/architect should work to produce a new plan at no cost to you.

Sounds to me like your designer isn't listening: you mention 800 sq ft and 500 sq ft that he/she included that you don't want.

In the words of someone famous, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." I think your designer is doing poorly with his/her assignment and is charging you up the wazoo for it to boot.

Edited to add: I'm curious about why you included a 5 car garage. I'm not challenging your need/right to have it - just wondering the purpose. And if it's worth the cost.

It's hard to say without seeing the plans. Garage space "should" be cheap space. But not if it's cut into a hill I guess. Any way to site this differently?

I agree with Charles Ross Homes. If you need to cut more than 10% your design is in trouble.

And yes, you should not have to pay any more...if that contractor is still in the running for the job.

Good luck.

I had an architect do up my first plans. A nice job, but turned out definitely over budget. I put my dreams on hold for a couple years, before looking again, and ended up with the log kit home I'm finishing now, within budget.

Is this as nice as the original plans? In some ways no, but it does for me nearly all I really wanted/needed out of the original concept. I have a copy somewhere, someday I'll look at it again - and be totally satisfied with what I built.

I will say, your designer adding on all those extra unrequested square feet... they do add up! Also, bumps and roof considerations...

While the garage is massive, it does seem like the basement matches the living area - which is usually the best way to go. So extra storage in this basement is just what it takes to match your first level.

Have you been given quotes on each budget item so you can see where the cost is? Then you might be able to make educated decisions about cuts.

Our last build was $600k and it would have been easy to cut $100k out of it - even $200k if you really had to. How tall is your garage? Are you wrapping the whole thing in brick? Large stone fireplace? Skip patio or deck? Or is the excavation and walls $400k and that is the real problem? You might find the basement excavation and pour is just $100k and there are other things to cut.

So you've got maybe 1000 sq ft of space you didn't request? Im giving you 300'sq ft for storage in the mix. Taking your garage out of the equation for the moment and lets use a low per sq ft cost of $165.00. 5th grade math tells me that comes to $165,000. You can't possibly expect that to come in at budget. I'd be talking to the designer if it were me. Just saying......

To be clear the lot is not in a resort area. It's in the suburbs half way between the city and the resorts. It's actually no closer to these resorts than my old house in the city was to other resorts. (We have seven ski resorts in close proximity to Salt Lake City.) It is in the mountains and we did anticipate a higher cost than in the Salt Lake valley. When we approached the builders and the designers in the beginning to get an idea of cost we absolutely had all of the components of the design (including the massive garage under) and the sloped lot included in the discussions.

We were looking for a total budget of around $850,000: $350,000 lot and $500,000 construction. Before jumping into this process I tried to read books on how to keep costs down and most of what I read said: 1) design as a rectangle (done), 2) build up not out to reduce roofing cost (hence the garage in what would be basement space that we don't need), 3) keep roof lines simple (we asked the designer to keep the roof as simple as possible without the HOA rejecting it), 4) use standard materials like roof trusses (done). In Salt Lake City and Park City most homes have a full basement and we felt like that would be a waste for us, so we preferred to use it for garage space instead of additional living space we would never use. The reason we wanted a large garage was because we each have a daily driver vehicle, my husband has an additional work vehicle, and we usually have one 4wheeling vehicle (common in Utah), and we often have a variety of "toys" such as dirt bikes (with a trailer to haul), maybe jet skis in the future or a boat, or a small camper trailer. Due to the climate in Park City and the finicky HOA, we needed space to park them. The designer said the HOA would reject garage doors more than 3 cars wide and the designer said doing 3 cars across and just 1 space double deep would be as expensive as doing the full 3x2 (6 car) garage. During the design process we also eliminated quite a bit of built in cabinetry that the designer added in order to keep costs down. We do have a single stone fireplace in the design (not very large). The window bid is very reasonable. The exterior is siding (LP Smart Siding) with portion of the lower front of the house in stone veneer. During the process the designer was regularly meeting with our preferred builder to go over the design, but the designer told us we would not be able to get a cost estimate until structural engineering was done.

We do have an itemized bid and when we went over it with the builder it was clear that excavation costs, foundation costs, framing costs, and a retaining wall came in higher than all of us were expecting. He also stated that over the last 8 months many of the building materials have increased in cost 8-10%.

I have reached out to the designer and our preferred builder to ask if we can sit down together and discuss how we can proceed with building and where we can make cuts.

Thank you again for all of the feedback.

I cannot see how a local designer could possibly have thought you could build a house in the Park City environs for that budget. Any builder will tell you that you need to be looking at at least $250 /sq ft now. Also, I don't know of any HOAs in the area that have a minimum permitted living area of less than 3,000 sf.

Also, typically one would expect to spend in the order of twice the lot cost for the build; ie at least $700,000 to give you a finished property that is appropriate. A total of a little over $1m (lot plus home) is inexpensive for a view home in this area. Look at finished properties for sale - you couldn't buy one for that price.

We're working on design for our second build in the PC environs. We think we can build a 3,200 sf home for around $800,000 (not including the lot).

I hope you can resolve your problems, and come up with a design that the HOA will accept and that you can manage.

While you are at this stage, also ask what the permitting / inspection fees are in Summit County. If you don't already know this, you might be in for another shock, so best to find out so you can add those costs to your budget.

Best of luck - I mean that nicely!

I think the, "don't build a house at all" option is one that you are going to have to seriously consider.

You are going to have to make significant cuts if things like the framing budget are coming in too high. The question should be, if you knew from the beginning that you were going to have to make the kind of sacrifices that you obviously are, would you have done it? Forget the money you have spent on the design process, it is gone and it isn't coming back.

Your best bet is to post the plans and let a few more sets of eyes take a look at it. I personally suspect your basement design is requiring a lot of steel which is driving the price up a bit.

Also, from your description I am somewhat concerned you are going to run into an appraisal issue at the end, so I would strongly advise using a construction to permanent loan, rather than two separate loans if you go through with it.

This is a very disheartening situation. I live in Colorado and am in a similar boat. We just got the first rough tally of bids from our builder. Our estimate is coming in at $890,000 for 3,330 sq ft of finished living space. We have a living space footprint and unfinished basement of about 2,400 sq ft and another 1,200 sq ft of garage in a split configuration. Our budget was $700,000 for the build.

I am the designer and have worked closely with my builder to make prudent design decisions, not cheapest. I suppose I should be happy to have come in only 27% over budget.

My builder is telling me that the structural costs are what have increased considerably in the past year. The finish costs are not much changed in over 2 years. Concrete and drywall are up, but it's lumber prices, specially sheet good prices that are up. The current administration's tariff on Canadian lumber is to blame. Many of the sheet goods used in construction are sourced from Canada and even even though the tariff is at most 24%, the situation gives all the players reason to simply raise prices on all sorts of lumber-related products.

Engineering caused some significant premiums in my design. Apparently, there is a lot of CIY by structural and soils engineers in my region over the past 20 years or so. I'm having to put in full 10' deep foundation walls under my garage walls instead of just 30" because of soil conditions that are just marginally suspect. 20 years ago this wouldn't be a requirement. Using counterforts for any basement wall greater than 16' in length is also standard practice now. houses similar in size to mine can have about a dozen. My design also bumped up the foundation cost because of a brick ledge around the whole building. Just our foundation and flatwork are coming in at $105,000.

$190,000 might seem like a small difference, but it's bringing into question the wisdom of building at all. In our area, this price range of housing becomes difficult to sell, and the higher the price, the more difficult it becomes, so there's good reason to keep costs contained. I might spend some more time and money investigating a much smaller, simpler and hopefully less expensive design.

"The closer the overall house is to a rectangle, or at least a U, H, T or L shape, the less it will cost to build."

Rectangle, yes. But U, H, T or L are significantly more expensive than a massive square. You are increasing the exterior wall space considerably for the same or less livable square footage. These additional exterior walls require cladding and insulation. In the parts of the country where you can't use slab foundations, a foundation wall and footing (crawl space or basement) must be constructed underneath that exterior wall. When you have a lot of exterior wall, you'll want to put holes in it, so you will also have an increase in the number of windows.

The more I read this thread the more confused I become.

The OP wrote, "... Fair point about budget. The budget we brought to our designer and all of the builders was $500,000. The bids are coming back around $850,000 to $875,000. To me, $375,000 over budget when given a $500,000 budget seems insane. If we were coming in at $600,000 or $650,000 I think we could make it work. (Please note this does not include the cost of the lot. This is construction cost only.)..."

OK, a $500,000 budget for a multi-level house built on an uphill slope, with a very large excavated garage and habitable area on the lowest level, which probably has large, engineered retaining walls at 2-3 sides of the house.

Can we start by identifying the floor area of the total house, including basement? At least that will give us a rough guide-line of $/SF that was budgeted.

Of course it would be a great help if the OP would post floor plans and elevations so that we can get a much greater insight into the levels of complexity of the design.

I agree with Charles that it's reasonable to expect that the existing design may have a reasonable cost reduction that is possible--maybe 10% - 15%, or thereabouts. But larger cost reductions likely mean developing a new program by the owners and a new design and estimating by the designer and builder.

OP gave details about the square footage above. She did everything everyone on here always tells you to do (i.e. engage an architect and builder before presenting plans to make sure the design is coming on near budget), and still got hosed. If the initial budget was that far off she should have been told at that time, or at least midway through, not when the plans were done. At this point the plans are merely a pretty piece of paper. Plain and simple the designer failed his assignment, and should re-do the plans gratis, because he didn't deliver what he was contracted to do.

I realize it is semantics but there is a large differnce between a "designer" and and "architect". Not sure about a 370K differnce but...................

We are nearly done completion (should be finished next week!) and I'm
within 0.5% of my budget. (Yes, 0.5%. I had ridiculously detailed dwgs, a
fixed price contract, and all fixtures picked in advance. And I was
hardline on any/all change orders. To date I've paid my GC under 2k in
change orders!)

Good for you! I think we'd all be interested in hearing details on exactly how you did this.

I, personally, would not engage the same designer if they are not providing free correction services.

Did your design team (designer, builder, you) all sit down together and design the house? Or did the designer just give you his word that he consulted with the builder?

I totally hate to say this, but y'all might have to stop, regroup, save up more money for a new design, and assemble a design team that all meets *together,* face-to-face.

So sorry. :-(

((( hugs )))

The more we learn, the sadder it gets. I seriously doubt that the OP can get what she wants within her budget.

Heres a thought: build the house with a standard 2-car garage. Cheaper and better for eventual resale. Use the money you have left over (I'm being an optimist here) to build a separate building for extra vehicles and toys. People do that all the time and I can't see why everything has to be stored under your house's roof.

MrsPete, don't want to hijack the OPs post, but in a nutshell - we were super-anal. We spent two years refining our plans, a year pre-picking all of our fixtures, and prebought many of them as needed and when on sale. Our contract was fixed price, and I was adamant with our GC that he had to prove there was an error/discrepancy on our drawings before we'd hand over any cash. We took photos of everything, and were onsite 2-3 times a week til closeup, and then I was onsite for 3 months straight during finishing work. The GC isn't thrilled with us, and he'll probably never work with technical folk ever again, but I stuck to my guns!

Ie, I gave up my life to build a house. I really wasn't joking when I told my boss, "I'm never taking maternity leave, so I'm taking birth-a-house-leave for 3 months...".

build a separate building for extra vehicles and toys

Most neighborhoods in my area have covenants that prohibit separate buildings, so this may not be an option for the OP.

That never occurred to me, alley. So, people just leave their toys outside? Surely that's not allowable, either.

If that is the case, the OP is truly screwed.

My HOA does not allow a detached building. That is why people design in 4-car and 6-car attached garages. the OP is using their basement for the garage since they have considerable grade changes, if I understand correctly. There really should be some economies gained with that type of design.

So, people just leave their toys outside? Surely that's not allowable, either.

Nope, leaving cars/toys outside wouldn't be allowed either. Off-site storage becomes the option.

Unfortunately the grade of the lot and the shape and the HOA required setbacks will not allow us to build a secondary building to house toys. I also forgot to mention that my husband and I are both handy (him with vehicles, me with remodeling-type work) and we also intended to use part of the garage for a shop. Again we thought by stuffing this all under the main living area inside of a rectangle would save us money. We clearly did not understand the true cost of excavation or foundations. Toys outside may be against HOA regulations (I need to follow up, the designer who lives in the HOA said it was but I need to re-review the CC&Rs) but certainly putting them outside will cause significant wear and tear due to the mountain climate. This is our first time experiencing an HOA so we are also behind the learning curve with that. Their CC&Rs looked very fair and reasonable and their cost (only $200 / year) seemed reasonable as well.

We really did research and try to follow best practice suggestions on consulting experts before making assumptions on the cost to build. We were completely up front regarding our gigantic garage plan and single level living above. We have also tried to be flexible in listening to the designer when he would tell us that things we requested were out of budget. (There were countless times when we asked for changes like different orientation of roof trusses or location of walls when he said "you can't afford that" and we would defer.)

The designer informed us many times about meeting with our preferred builder to discuss our plans. That said, we were not included in these conversations (which we found frustrating) and I have no way to know for absolute certainty exactly what they discussed and whether complete budget discussions ever came up. Again we thought we were doing this the right way by making sure the designer and builder were having conversations throughout the entire design process.

After reaching out to our designer, he has responded saying he is "very disappointed" and that "we can certainly meet to go over things". I am waiting to hear back from our preferred builder so that we can arrange a time to discuss. I am working with my husband to make certain we are on the same page in terms of the items we are willing to sacrifice to meet budget. Once we know just how much we have to give up to be on budget and / or just how low we can get the cost, we can make a more educated decision on how to proceed and whether that means giving up this dream and trying to find an existing house to buy.

Thank you again everyone.

I think we all sympathize with the OP and situation she finds herself in. I found the house square footage, which the OP noted as 2,500 SF on the main level and 800 SF on the lower level. This is the "occupied" area. Then there's the garage which I gather is about 1,400 SF (3 cars wide X 2 cars deep, or 36' X 40', more or less). So the total constructed area is approximately 2,500 + 800 + 1,400 SF = 4,700 SF total.

At the starting budget of $500,000, that would equate to $106/SF. At the bid prices of $850,000 - $875,000, that would equate to $181 - $186/SF. How reasonable do these prices seem compared to the cost of other homes in your area?

At these rates, your 2,500 SF main level house would cost about $465,000 (2,500 SF X $186).

While SF rates are not always a good measuring device for residential construction, the comparative numbers do show you that your lower level is costing a great deal (1,400+800 SF X $186 = $409,200), and almost as much as your larger upper level.

It gives you a good target for discussions and reducing expenses. Good luck!

Hope you are able to find a happy compromise and work things out!

I can't imagine how a builder can even guesstimate how much something will cost until they have a full set of plans(Civil, Architectural, Structural, Mechanical etc..). Builders in my area these days typically do a take off on all materials after they feed the plans into a 'take-off' material software and then come up some accurate representation of real costs.

Although i sympathize with the OP, i hoped she had done her homework and not taken something at face value. "Oh, i guess i can design/build this for 500k', sort of promises from the designer or the builder.

While SF rates are not always a good measuring device for residential construction, the comparative numbers do show you that your lower level is costing a great deal (1,400+800 SF X $186 = $409,200), and almost as much as your larger upper level.

I doubt the unfinished basement is actually costing $186 per square foot. That would only be true if the basement was finished to the same level as the upper floor. Assuming that the garage doesn't include a bathroom, kitchen, flooring, etc. it will be much cheaper than the other structure.

Also remember that the frost line in parts of Utah is 42" so the marginal cost of even a 2,200 square foot basement may only be $20,000 - $50,000, depending on the slope. Making it a garage space probably eliminates support walls which adds steel to the basement that can be a lot more expensive than walls would have been.

I suspect the entire house is just too big. Eliminating perimeter of both the garage and the main floor will help, but again, at some point you have to question building at all.

(i.e. engage an architect

She did not engage an architect. She engaged a designer.

Eliminating perimeter of both the garage and the main floor will help

The OP does not have much scope to reduce the finished living space. I think it is around 3,300 at present, and while I don't know exactly which development the lot is in, the HOA is unlikely to allow less than 3,000. This cannot include garage, mechanical room, patios etc. If I am wrong on this, then the OP can certainly downsize.

The HOA's Architectural Guidelines (not necessarily the CC&Rs) will specify this, along with other restrictions like the amount of stone siding that must be used, acceptable roof materials, etc, etc.

Building costs in this area are definitely in the region of $250 /sf.
Builders are very busy and subs are really hard to get. None of this
makes it easy to negotiate or reduce costs unfortunately.

"...I doubt the unfinished basement is actually costing $186 per square foot. That would only be true if the basement was finished to the same level as the upper floor. Assuming that the garage doesn't include a bathroom, kitchen, flooring, etc. it will be much cheaper than the other structure..."

Well...portions of the basement are indeed "conditioned" and habitable, according to the OP--some 800SF. And a "garage" or basement, if one wants to call it that, which is an additional 36' X 40' is a very large space to build and then put a house on top of that. It's large and has to have substantial structure for support of the house above.

Most expensive of all, perhaps, for the lower level, is that it's built into an uphill slope, which likely means engineered retaining walls, with properly designed footings, reinforcing, drainage and backfill. This isn't some simple CMU foundation wall set on top of a poured footer, with a couple of vertical rebars here and there!

If I'm correct, the retaining walls alone could be a 5- to 6-figure number, depending on height and length of run.

Regardless, the bottom story does cost "something", and it's likely to be a BIG something, given the size, conditions for which designed and the necessary structural elements.

We haven't seen what the 2,500 SF house on the main level looks like and the level of complexity or expense. But 2,500 SF is not a large or extravagant size. The lower level is.

Just a thought to the OP, there is easily well in excess of 100 years of experience of combined professionals reading this post. It may behove you to post your elevations and floor plans. You will get solid advice and quite possibly save a lot of $. The advice and services you've paid for are clearly costing you dearly financially and otherwise. Just an observation.

If I'm correct, the retaining walls alone could be a 5- to 6-figure number, depending on height and length of run.

Yes, exactly. Four years ago we built on a downhill lot, still a fair bit of excavation. Lower level was 1,800 sf. Cost of everything from excavation to foundation walls was $130K!

Engineering has to cater for a min 200 lb/sf snow load, which add to the 'typical' cost of construction too.

The whole reason that older English homes placed the ballrooms on the top floor was that engineering a large open space was difficult enough when it just had to be covered by a roof. But engineering a large open space that had to support additional floors and a roof was impossible until the use of structural steel beams became possible.

It's still really really difficult and really really expensive to create a large open space that supports living space weight and a snow loaded roof above.

Ergo, it is your program that is the issue in the costs. Someone should have never taken any money from you to begin with. Someone should have bluntly told you that you were way underfunded for what you wanted. Someone didn't.

Because one BIG difference in a designer and an architect is the professional obligation that they are required to have for their client's best interests. Even if it means that the architect does not get a job from the client, they would be obligated to tell them that what they want likely can not happen for the budget that they want to spend. A ''house designer', which is not any kind of real title, doesn't have that obligation. Or any kind of actual professional obligation. Those with talent and integrity may assume the same burden of professional behavior, but they aren't actually obligated to even create plans that can stand up by themselves.

I feel your pain. We are also building in a ski resort area, ( but in Colorado) and were in a similar situation working with a great architect who was very honest that he really could only guess at construction costs. Ours is a duplex on a downward sloping lot, ideal for a walkout basement, but with considerable excavation. Not including land costs, we also ended up a bit over 60% over budget and probably when all is complete we'll be even a bit more over (some our choices like extra insulation and warmboard instead of staple up hydronic radient heat, as well as a few decorative upgrades, but others falling into the catagory of s##t happens." ). We were lucky that we could bite the bullet and go forward, but it was a painful decision and will delay full retirement by a year or two. Just for an exercise I ran the numbers per square foot. Including about 2500 of heated and plumbing stubbed, but unfinished, walkout basements and 1250 of heated garages at grade, plus the livable finished spaces of about 5309 on the main two floors we come in at $166 per square foot. Excluding garages, but including unfinished basements we're a bit over $ 200 per square ft. and just using finished square footage we are at $312. So square footage is a poor measurement especially where you have lots of non-living spaces -- garages, unfinished basements, etc. Of course this is a duplex so has two kitchens and 5.5 finished baths.

Lee is right, building in snow country adds expense, considering snow loads and rooflines designed for optimal snow shed, which causes them to be more complex.

Mountainous terrain also increases costs because there will be boulders to deal with in excavation. Our excavation cost was approx $78,000 and we didn't run into any large boulders that had to be blasted. Footers and foundation walls were about $97,000. One expense that was completely unexpected (but should have been) was snow removal labor to the tune of $12,000 since we had some pretty big snows before we were completely under roof. Also resort areas tend to have pretty onerous permit and tap fees. Ours combined were right over $100,000. So you can see how it adds up pretty quickly.

And we got lucky -- our contractor told us that prices are going up like crazy, from materials to subs because there is so much building going on this summer. We're very lucky we got most of that locked in last year.

You may have to start over or at least reduce your original plan. Fortunately you said that it was larger than you originally wanted anyway. If I were you, I would go back to the original designer and builder and see what you can cut. You'll probably have to raise your budget a bit some too. If you have the land area and it is permitted, what about a smaller garage to start with the idea of adding another detached garage/workspace down the road as/if finances permit.

I know it has some drawbacks, but posting your plan here might really help. As others have said, there are some really talented architects that frequent this forum. Even if they don't have experience building in snow country, their input can be very valuable and give you some ideas to take back to your designer.

MrsPete, don't want to hijack the OPs post, but in a nutshell - we were
super-anal. We spent two years refining our plans, a year pre-picking
all of our fixtures, and prebought many of them as needed and when on
sale. Our contract was fixed price, and I was adamant with our GC that
he had to prove there was an error/discrepancy on our drawings before
we'd hand over any cash. We took photos of everything, and were onsite
2-3 times a week til closeup, and then I was onsite for 3 months
straight during finishing work. The GC isn't thrilled with us, and he'll
probably never work with technical folk ever again, but I stuck to my
guns!

Excellent. We are already in the process of setting those very ideas in motion.

My
HOA does not allow ... Nope, leaving cars/toys outside wouldn't be allowed either ... HOA required setbacks will not allow us ... the HOA is unlikely to allow less than 3,000 ... HOA's Architectural Guidelines will specify ... restrictions like the amount of stone siding ...

Okay, I know I'm just an ignorant girl from the country and grew up in spaces where we literally couldn't see another house from ours, but I really don't understand why people pay huge amounts to "buy into" places that restrict you so stringently -- and then seem to be unhappy when those restrictions affect the design. Surely they don't keep these details secret until after you buy.

Surely they don't keep these details secret until after you buy.

No, of course not.

Review of the CC&Rs, HOA's Bylaws, Architectural Guidelines and all other Governing Documents should be part of every lot purchaser's due diligence. Not just referring to the OP in this thread, but everyone, everywhere.

We took photos of everything, and were onsite 2-3 times a week til closeup, and then I was onsite for 3 months straight during finishing work. The GC isn't thrilled with us, and he'll probably never work with technical folk ever again, but I stuck to my guns!

Lol! We were the same, but probably even more so! Our GC was really happy with it though. We are using him again for our next build and were pleased that he was keen to work with us again. We are 'technical folk' too and had spreadsheets for everything...

"The GC isn't thrilled with us, and he'll probably never work with technical folk ever again,"-LOL! so familiar

sorry for the OT..I've been reading through this exceptionally interesting thread..many great insights that I hope will prove helpful

"Okay, I know I'm just an ignorant girl from the country and grew up in spaces where we literally couldn't see another house from ours, but I really don't understand why people pay huge amounts to "buy into" places that restrict you so stringently -- and then seem to be unhappy when those restrictions affect the design. Surely they don't keep these details secret until after you buy."

HOA's suck... until the Clampets move in next door ;-)

LOL @lee, I've got 2 enormous spreadsheets that covers every aspect of the build from the ground up. They've grown somewhat after working them daily for 2 years running. OCD to the max but our builder is happy with it, no stone unturned and every thing from fixtures to light switches is listed, room by room inside and outside down to the type of deck sealer.

Pensacola, good plans, but what do you do if, say, the tile you want to use is discontinued? And perhaps (?) obviously no one is going to store ALL of it before you get close to that far? I'm mentioning this because I had no less than 4 tiles I'd chosen discontinued, but I was able to find spare bits of one of those enough to make me happy. (I kept my replacements that I picked later within the same price range.) I also lost out on my first choice for one of my quartz countertops... (ain't no one storing that!) but actually found something much better once push came to shove, and the old one was gone!

I also don't know exactly what light fixtures I want until I see the place in situ. Some yes, some no.

Where I could be definitive before the structure was built, I certainly was.

HOA's suck... until the Clampets move in next door ;-)

When I moved into the current home, the next door neighbors had a car or two up on blocks, and were running an answering service with several employees parking in that yard - this was 1991. Down the road, someone kept a bull in a small pasture. My mother was very worried for me.. but I noted... these people are QUIET (unlike the coke dealer above the condo I'd previously lived in).

I'll deal with the Clampetts. And at the very least, my yard will look better than theirs, with minimal effort on my part!

Hey now - the Clampett's house would easily meet the square footage minimums:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/most-expensive-home-is-350-million-chartwell-from-beverly-hillbillies

artemis, good points. The only tile we will have is in the baths but to CYA, I'll get an extra box to keep on hand IF a problem comes up.

Here's a reference that will give you some idea of what has been happening to building materials costs:

http://nahbnow.com/2017/04/cost-of-building-materials-is-on-the-rise/