Happy Holidays!

Greetings everyone!  We hope the holiday finds you in high spirits; happy, healthy, and bursting with good cheer. Here is a quick note from each of us, with the exception of Tim.  His old friend, Rawbone Victorton took his turn, ‘cause he felt that there was a story needin’ to be told.

TIM’S TIRADE (AS TOLD BY RAWBONE VICTORTON)

I declare ter gracious, it’s been a blue moon since I dun wrote Tim’s Christmas Letter, but times is strange an I figger I better come outta my mouse hole cuz dars some dire straights need straightening and turrible tales need telling.

Times is tough, no ‘sputin dat. De belt, it dun tighten up snug ‘round here. But don worry, de Garrisons is doin jes fine. Dey trimming de fat here an dar, but dars still plenny uv truck to go roun. Jes like lots of other folks, we all’z getting by with a little less dez days. De way I sees it, dat dare a good thing ever so offen.

But dar is an evil lurkin mo sinister dan even de eekonomics. What mek dis menace so dodgy is dat everyone in de roun’ world thinks it’s a good thing. Dey think dat it’s good fer de kids and good fer de grownups. Dat it mek de kids smarter an’ faster an’ mo kordnated. Dat it frees up time fer de grownups so’s they can do dere grownup things without de noyance of no chillus pestering round. Dat it mek big money an’ jobs fer lots o’ folks everywheres.

What dat thing? It’s called the YucchsBox. Yep, dat what it’s called. An dar’s one wukkin its pizen right here at de Stump and Gorge.

Now dar is one man what understand the danger of dish yer kentrapshen, and dat man is my ol friend, Tim. He and I, we go way back, back to his days growin up on de ranch in Mudesta. We had some times back then, sho! An’ what mek it funny is dat dar was no YucchsBox ter be had. Heck, dar not even a TV most of the time. You wanna talk about lean times, dem Garrisons had em in spades back in dem days! Tim and his rambunctious brothers had ter come up with their own ways of having fun that didn’t need no plug-in. An so dey did. Blackberry forts, pony riding, cow pie fights, stick ball, hunting, barn rafter swings, fixing up dar busted gear; and on rainy days they played spoons, or peenuckle, or loaded up their own amminition, or shot marbles, or even mebbe read a book when times got real slow. De point is dat when kids don’t have no other option, dey will invent dar own funniments; you ken take dat to de bank.

Tim, he recognize dis an he put strictions on de YucchsBox. He ratchet down de boys time in hopes dat they’ll figger out sumpin else to do.

So today is de day after Thanksgiving and Corey come up to his papa an say, “Dad, it’s a holiday today, can I have some YucchsBox time?”

Tim up an spon, “Corey, what holiday is it terday? De-Day-After-Thanksgiving-Holiday? I ain’t never heard of dat one.”

“Well we don’t have no school, so it’s got to be a holiday.”

“No, Corey, it’s a weekday jes like any other weekday. So if you want YucchsBox time you have to earn it by doin chores or reading.”

A sorry fit of blubberin and bellyaching follered that would have make you think  the old man was bending the boy’s knees bakerds.  “DAAAAAD, that’s not fair! It’s raining outside. If we can’t play YucchsBox, what can we do? There’s NOTHING ter do round here.”

“Well lemme see if I can think of something? You could: read, build the half-built models you’ve had fer a couple years, play ping pong, play a board game, fix your broken motorcycles, fix your broken bicycles, fix your broken radio controlled car, play foosball, hit baseballs off the tee, play skyscraper to the ceiling, play cards, skateboard in the garage, do some laundry, or as a last resort, flop around on the ground like a spanked baby.”

“Dad, you are SOOOooo boring. All those things are stupid.”

“You think they’re stupid because that blamed YucchsBox done sucked all yo brains out. All those activities I mentioned, they put into yo brain. The YucchsBox, it takes out. You sit dar like a zombie while de TV in cahoots wid de YucchsBox, tap into yo brain an open up de drain. All de thinking and cypherin you got jes go swirling away like a big fat russet potata down de toilet.”

An so Corey commence to flopping and yowling like dar not a brain lef in his head. Connor hear dis an mosey over.

“Heyo, Corey, I’ll bet I can take you at marbles.”

“Becha can’t.”

An so off they dart fur de basement. Purty soon dar come de soun uv laughin and rough housing to beat the ban. Dis go on fer an hour or better until de marbles run outta interest. Den both boys back upstairs wid long faces.

“Dad,” say Connor, “Why can’t we play de YucchsBox like udder kids? You make it seem like it’s gwinter kill us er sumpin.”

“Yeah, DAD,” Corey chime in. “All my friends, they play ALL THE TIME. An, look at em, dare normal.”

Ol Tim, he lower his book an level a bead on his sons an say, “Look at yoseffs, boys. You’re hooked. You’re just like a couple of drug junkies on dope. You’ll do ennathing to get your next YucchsBox fix. Even lower youseffs to the level of other YucchsBox junkies.”

Jes then Cindy stomp into the room, she did. An she drop the H-Bomb. “Boys, I’ve had all de complaining I can take an I got jes the fix for yer boredom. HOMEWORK! Yep, you both have plenny and now is as good a time as any to git ‘er done. So get out yer books and crack em!”

Suddenly it got real quiet. The boys look at each kind of sheepish. But sho nuff they hunker down wid their studies. Peace and harmony quick found its way back mungst the household and all was splimmy splammy.

An that’s how it allers seems ter go wid de YucchsBox. Dat blamed thing causes mo prollems den a mad steer in de henhouse! If it’s not mekkin de chilluns shirk dar chores, it’s causing a ruckus bout who’s turn it is. An’ den here come de spute about who’s better at warrin and shootin de bad guys an who’s got mo heads blowed off dan de other boy. It wudden surprise me if one day ol Tim up an huck dat silver snag o’er de cliff. An dat’s all I got to say bout dat.

Wellnow, I see dat I’m running shy on room at de end of dish year page, so mayhap I shud sign off. And don’t dat bang my time, too, cuz I uz jes getting warmed up! Mebby you an yer fambly could sidle on by an pay us a visit so’z we cud sit roun an pass de time er day tergedder? Yassir, I’d sholy like dat.

Ennaway, have yosef a splimmy holiday an be real careful about loadin up too heavy on dem vigeo games. Dare trubble wid a capital T!

CONNOR’S CAVORTINGS: 

Merry Christmas all! This year has been a big year for me; transitioning from middle school to high school. I am a freshman at Sedro-Woolley High School and  I am taking the main core classes with woodshop and drafting for my electives. Overall I am really enjoying school. This summer my family and I went to Sandpoint Idaho, to the Schweitzer Mountain resort. We did some downhill mountain biking, taking the chairlifts to the top of the mountain and then riding one of the many different trails down.  At the moment, I am participating in school basketball. I am on the JV team with a couple other friends and I think we will do alright this year. Hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season.

Connor Garrison

COREY’S STORIES:

 Hi to everyone. I currently attend Cascade Middle School and in the 7^th grade. Some activities we did over this year is we went to Idaho and we stayed at a nice hotel and while we were there, we rented mountain bikes and did some down-hill mountain biking. That was probably the most fun thing we did all year. Also, for part of the summer, I went to California to work for my uncle around his shop doing work that needed to be done. When I came home, I received a paycheck of $80! Some hobbies that I like are: skateboarding, baseball and other sports, and dirt bike riding. A highlight of the year was that finally, I am tall enough to ride my dad’s 1977 RL 250 trials bike. It is really fun to ride around on.

Have a good Christmas!         

SAYS CINDY:

When I think back on the year of 2008, I’d have to say it has been a year of transitions.  Connor made the jump to high school, and is doing a great job keeping up with the rigors of much harder classes and more competitive athletics.  He also finished driver’s ed - a big transition for his mom, that’s for sure.  Corey graduated from our small neighborhood elementary school (Big Lake) and has entered the world of middle school.  He is having fun making new friends and trying new things.  This year, Corey became the first Garrison in two generations to play football - he made it through unscathed and had a fun season.  Tim has made the switch (again!) to working from home and loves it.  It sure does cut down on expenses - no commute, no executive lunches, and no clothing allowance needed - he just saunters into the office wearing his flannel pants and stained sweatshirt — seems like a guy paradise, huh?  As for me, this has definitely been a year of changes.  With no more school or parent group responsibilities, and the kids off and running (literally out the door at 7 am), I find that I’m experiencing a bit of an “empty nest”.  So, with much more free time on my hands than I’ve ever had, I’m currently looking for new activities and opportunities to enjoy during this next phase of life.  Speaking of new activities… the highlight of 2008 for me was the Portland Marathon in October.  Two girlfriends and I trained all summer to walk the 26.2 mile course and I’m proud to say that we made it in a time of 6 hours, 29 minutes.  It was a big challenge, but we had a blast — definitely a fun way to wind down 2008! 

As this letter goes to print, we’re currently snowed in here at the Stump and Gorge.  Two official snow days - and another tomorrow - add three more days to Christmas vacation!  There’s a boatload of boys (7 to be exact) who’ve come in from sledding to warm up with a hot cocoa and a spirited game of poker.  I can’t think of a better way to kick off a fun holiday break!  Here’s wishing you and your family a wonderful holiday season.  Merry Christmas everyone!

According to everyone I talk to, it’s slooooow out there. Lots of small construction and consulting companies are laying folks off, or worse, going under.

One thing I’ve done to keep busy is take more remodel, upgrade, and addition work. In fact, of the 75 or so jobs I’ve taken this year, less than five were all new construction. Usually about half of my work is all new construction.

THE PROBLEM

Everything costs more lately, no news there. But sticker shock for remodels, especially, has been the cause of abundant heartburn.

STRUCTURAL CODE IMPLICATIONS WITH REMODELS

Under the 2006 IBC, the approach to remodels is different than in the old days. Used to be, your remodel “could not weaken” the structure. Meaning you didn’t have to bring crusty old buildings or their parts up to the new code; you were fine as long as your project made the structure no weaker.

ENTER THE 2006 IBC

Here is how the new code handles remodels structurally:

2006 IBC Chapter 34, Existing Structures
3403.2 Structural.

Additions or alterations to an existing structure shall not increase the force in any structural element by more than 5 percent, unless the increased forces on the element are still in compliance with the code for new structures, nor shall the strength of any structural element be decreased to less than that required by this code for new structures. Where repairs are made to structural elements of an existing building, and uncovered structural elements are found to be unsound or otherwise structurally deficient, such elements shall be made to conform to the requirements for new structures.

WHAT IT MEANS

My read of the above is: Any part of an existing building that is structurally affected by an alteration must be brought up to the new code. Wonder why they couldn’t just say that?

WHAT ABOUT THE IRC?

An architect friend pointed out the following:

2006 IRC Chapter 1, Administration
R102.7.1 Existing structures - Additions, alterations or repairs.

Additions, alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations or repairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building.

WHAT IT MEANS

This appears to mean that if you’re operating under the IRC rather than the IBC, you only have to make sure the new parts of your project meet the new code. That would be nice, but it ain’t necessarily so. The main problem with the IRC is that in order to take advantage of its relaxed structural requirements the building must be “ordinary.” The rules for “ordinary” are many, nearly impossible to find, and in my opinion, ridiculous. In essence a small box with one door and one window might qualify. Real houses, especially older ones, almost never do.

I wrote an article on this topic that was published in Nations Building News Online: When is Engineering Required Per the 2006 IRC?

THE UPSHOT

What all this really boils down to is that remodels cost more under the IBC than they did under the UBC. More for engineering, more for construction. Certainly, that extra cost should also translate to a stronger finished product.

… Any insights, help or direction you could provide would be greatly appreciated. 

Jan Rohila, Education Program Director
Building Industry Association of Washington

In a nutshell, this issue boils down to: When is engineering required and when not? As far as being a nuisance, shame on any engineer who projects that sentiment. That would be like a builder considering nailing boards together a nuisance. Yes, some boards are easier to nail than others, but that’s what builders are for, for crying out loud.

I think the code folks have gone overboard in their efforts to eliminate engineering of the simpler things. In fact, I believe those very efforts are the ones causing so much confusion. There are simply too many ways to build a house to say this way doesn’t need engineering but that way does. Trying to make that distinction-that line in the sand between shall be engineered and doesn’t have to be is what this hullabaloo is all about. What is the solution? I have an idea, but you’ll have to slog through the rest of this column first to get to it.

I, no stranger to building codes, spent more than a day researching the International Residential Code (IRC) (read: “groping desperately to unravel a hopelessly tangled pile of kite string”) and still am not sure I’ve got this issue completely nailed down. The following, I think, begins to answer the question. I’ve included code references in case some Very Brave Person wants to investigate further.

IRC vs. IBC. Right out of the chute, there can be confusion as to which code to use. The below Scope paragraph describes when the IRC can be used. However, the International Building Code (IBC) has many similar sections and lots of its own prescriptive requirements. One would hope that the prescriptive requirements in both codes are the same, which I believe is the case, though I didn’t specifically check them all.

To be clear, this article addresses only the 2003 IRC prescriptive requirements.

Scope. The IRC applies only to detached one-family, two-family (duplexes), and multiple single-family (townhouse) structures, three stories and less in height. Anything outside that definition must use the International Building Code [R101.2].

Conventional Construction. To evade engineering, the building, from stem to stern, must be “conventional construction”; i.e. in compliance with the structural chapters of the IRC [chapters 4,5,6 and 8 primarily]. This includes, among many other things, certain minimum amounts of shear walls-both exterior and interior in many cases-and proper connection of them to foundations, floors, and roofs.

If your overall building qualifies to use the IRC but certain structural elements aren’t “conventional”, then you only have to engineer the unconventional part(s), not the entire structure [R301.1.3].

Wind. If your structure is located where basic wind speeds are 110 mph or greater per the IRC’s map [Figure R301.2(4)], you can’t use the IRC. You’re instead directed to one of four other publications (good luck finding them). Concrete construction is an exception here-you can still use the IRC for formed concrete and Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) construction in wind areas up to 150 mph [R612.1, R611.2 and R301.2.1.1].

Wind Exposure. Surprising, to me at least, is that the requirement for engineering doesn’t depend on wind exposure. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re in exposure A (very well protected from the wind) or exposure D (on the naked shore of an ocean or other large water body), the only thing about wind triggering engineering is basic wind speed. [R301.2.1.4]

110 MPH Wind. Areas of 110 mph or greater winds generally include Alaska’s seaboard and the southern - eastern seaboards (from Texas to Rhode Island). Most of the continental U.S. is in the 85-90 mph region [Figure R301.2(4)].

Seismic Design Category. Engineering is required if you are in seismic design category E, usually [R301.2.2]. The other design categories-the ones that don’t trigger engineering-are, from mildest to strongest: A, B, C, D1, and D2. If you are in category E and you can get an expert to say you’re not, then you may still get out of engineering by being demoted to D2. Or, if you’re in category E and you design a plain plywood box with no “irregularities” (see below), you may again avoid engineering by demoting to D2. [R301.2.2.1.2].

How To Determine Seismic Design Category. The handy map in the IRC [Figure R301.2(2)] shows seismic design categories for the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska. However, it assumes a site class of “D”. But how do you know if you really are in site class D? Or, for that matter, what is site class D? Unfortunately, the IRC doesn’t give you either answer-it refers you to the IBC. Great.

Site class has to do with soil type. If your soils are stiff, dense, or rock, you’re okay with site class D. But if your soils are soft or spongy, you’re site class E or F, and now you can’t use the IRC maps to determine seismic design category-you need to hire an engineer. Cripes!

Seismic E. Seismic E areas generally include the west coast, the Sierra Nevada mountains, Hawaii (south part of the big island only), isolated pockets in the Rockies (eastern Idaho, western Wyoming, and northern Utah), southern Alaska, and a pocket along the Mississippi River in the western Tennessee, southeastern Missouri area [Figure R301.2(2)]. But, again, this is predicated on soil type.

Seismic Limitations - Dead Weight. If you use really heavy building materials for roofs, floors, or walls, engineering for seismic design will be required. Standard residential construction, including masonry and ICF, generally do not fall into this category [R301.2.2.2.1].

Seismic Limitations - Irregular Buildings in Seismic Design Categories C, D1, and D2. If your building has any of the following irregularities and you’re in C, D1, or D2, engineering is required [R301.2.2.2.2]:

• Shear walls don’t line up vertically from foundation to roof. An example might be a 2^nd floor exterior wall cantilevered beyond the exterior wall below it. Certain exceptions apply for mildly cantilevered or set-in wood framed walls.
• A portion of roof or floor is not supported by a shear wall. An example could be a portion of house supported on posts. There is an exception for projections of 6′ or less.
• The end of an upper floor shear wall occurs over an opening in the shear wall below. An example cold be a 2^nd floor shear wall that ends over the middle of a garage door below. Exceptions abound.
• There is an opening in a floor or roof that exceeds 12 feet in any dimension, or is greater than half the roof or floor’s smallest dimension. An example could be a very large skylight or a large opening in a 2^nd floor to accommodate stairs.
• Split level floors, a.k.a. vertically offset floors. Basically, if each level of floor has shear walls all the way around below, or if the floors are overlapped and tied together well, you could be exempted from this.
• Shear walls are not at right angles. This could apply to a house with a 45 degree V-shaped footprint , or any other non-90 degree exterior wall arrangement.
• Above grade stick-frame shear walls are mixed with masonry or concrete construction. However, masonry or concrete fireplaces and brick veneer don’t count, i.e. they’re exceptions. An example could be a mostly stick-framed house that has a window wall of ICF. This is the only irregularity that causes the entire affected story(ies) to be engineered.

Snow Load. Buildings located where ground snow load exceeds 70 pounds per square foot (psf) are required to be engineered [R301.2.3].

Floodway. Buildings located in floodways, as designated by the local building department, may not be designed per the IRC-they must follow IBC regulations. Note, this is different than being in a floodplain-which is allowed under the IRC without engineering [R301.2.4].

Story Height. First of all, understand that there is a difference between story height and maximum stud length. The IRC’s definitions [Chapter 2] tell us story height is a floor-to-floor distance. But in Chapter 3, story height is defined as stud height plus up to 16″ of floor framing. Make sure you and your code official interpret this correctly.

The IRC is more restrictive about story height than stud height of certain individual walls. For example, is it possible to have a story height of 10 feet but also have a 20 foot balloon framed entry wall, without engineering.

Weaving one’s way through the IRC’s spaghettian layout to get to the bottom of this story height issue is no simple matter [R301.3, Table R602.3(5), and Table R602.3.1]. Here’s the upshot.

• Wood Framed Walls. Maximum story height without engineering equates to 10 foot studs plus up to 16 inches of floor framing. However, there is an exception allowing 12 foot studs if you pump up shear wall requirements 20%.

Now, certain wall’s stud heights can go all the way to 24 feet without engineering, if wind speed is less than 100 mph, and you’re in seismic category A,B,C, or D1, and you follow the spacing and footnotes in Table R602.3.1. Regardless, the story height must not exceed that described in the above paragraph.

• Steel Studs. Maximum story height without engineering equates to 10 foot steel studs plus up to 16 inches of floor framing. I found no exceptions.
• Masonry Walls. Maximum story height without engineering equates to a floor to ceiling height of 12 feet plus up to 16 inches of floor system. Gable ends can extend another 8 feet without engineering.
• ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms). Maximum story height without engineering equates to a floor to ceiling height of 10 feet plus up to 16 inches of floor system. Maximum number of stories above grade without engineering is two [R611.2].

Construction on Fill. Engineering is required for fill soils under footings or foundations [R401.2].

There’s more prescriptive stuff in this code, but the above are the structural major-ticket-items. As I alluded earlier, finding answers here is kind of like capturing the snitch in Harry Potter’s quiddich: The snitch, very hard to see in the first place, flits and darts about while at the same time bludger balls barrel recklessly around aiming to bodily remove you from your broomstick.

Now for the solution. I think the code folks ran awry when they invented prescriptive design. Most people aren’t even aware that prescriptive design violates most state’s engineering law, which paraphrased, states that engineering shall be performed only by engineers (also architects in some states). Deciding what beams or shear walls to use is engineering. Period. I don’t care what IRC tables tell you, still, it is engineering. Span tables are a classic example. Say you’ve got a 16 foot garage door header that you size using an IRC span table but fail to notice the footnote that says only applicable to uniform distributed loads. Most non-engineers don’t even know what this means and won’t care that a girder truss is bringing a huge point load to the mid-span of their header, making it grossly undersized.

I prefer the good old days when the code simply described minimum standards and it was up to designers and code officials to decide when engineering was needed and when not. This required some basic understanding of the code, and common sense. I think today’s codes strive extravagantly to eliminate any possibility of someone actually engaging their brain and using common sense. I’m a big fan of common sense. You see, as soon as you try to define things so precisely, so exactly, that common sense is no longer needed, two things happen: 1) Your descriptions become so dense and perplexing, no one can understand them; and 2) People disengage their brains, throwing any attempt at common sense out the window.

Probably very few code writers will agree with the above, so here is another idea. How about a computer program that lets you input the type of structure you’re planning and where it will be located, then it spits out appropriate limitations and restrictions. Although I’m in the software business, this is a bit more ambitious than I would wish to tackle. If someone else wants to beat me to the punch, please do.

So, you see, Veronica, there really is a Boxtop Man. Keep your eye sharp and when you see him, don’t be shy – say hello. And if he needs help, chip in. It will be fun and you’ll make smiles that reach from here to the moon!

I had a great time. Strange how the anxieties and insecurities I felt in high school toward certain classmates have melted away. Maturity I suppose. At any rate, while there I wondered how many old romances might be sparked or rekindled as a result of the reunion? It sure would be an easy thing; the wine, the familiarity, the fact that you have a bond with these people that can not be reproduced or purchased.

So I loosed my imagination and a rather racy short story came of it: “Flames.” I entered it in a competition in the category “romance”, but won’t know the outcome for a month or so. No matter. Win or lose it was a hoot to write. If you’re reading this and were a classmate of mine, can you guess who the characters might be based on? But don’t work your noodle too hard - it is purely a product of my fertile imagination, 100% fiction.

“Take me, Kaufman,” she breathed.

To Kaufman her three-word request froze the din of the reunion party like a tripped circuit breaker. Suddenly they were alone, though noisy conversations continued all around. His personal fire for Rachel had smoldered for years, thirty to be exact. Since high school. But so much had transpired: marriages, career changes, kids, a divorce. The divorce was hers, not his.

“You look beautiful tonight, Rachel - more enticing even than when we were teenagers. I wanted you so badly then, you have no idea. I just didn’t know how to go about… ”

“I wanted you, too. I even knew you were too bashful to make the first move. But I was so shy. Then.” She smiled knowingly. “Not now, though. Thirty years can do a lot for a girl’s confidence.”

Kaufman couldn’t believe his ears. Rachel Lang was the one girl in high school he would have killed for. She was beautiful, from her wavy brunette tresses to her conservative schoolgirl shoes. And smart. The only possible justification for even her smallest lack of confidence was the gap between her front teeth. But her smile was so ready, so genuine, that after a while you didn’t notice the gap. An undeniable pressure began to make its presence felt, just like used to happen nearly every day when he passed her in the hall.

He reached and gently stroked her cheek. Her eyelids drifted closed and she put her hand on his. Lingering, she slid his hand down her neck and beyond. In the next moment her lips parted slightly and she leaned inward, whispering, “May I kiss you?”

Kaufman eased forward to meet her. A hint of wine colored her breath; that exotic smell he always associated with heady adult activity.

Their kiss was slow, passionate. Now he felt her womanliness pressing on his shirt, and it felt good, very good. It was happening. He’d dreamed this so many times.

But something wasn’t right. “Rachel, wait… wait a minute,” Kaufman said, pushing away a little. “I’m sorry. I can’t do this. I’m married.”

Their eyes met. He expected distress but was relieved, instead, to see compassion. “I understand,” she said. “I was too until last year. Are you happy in your marriage?”

Kaufman considered a moment and then replied, “Yes, very much so.”

“Then why did you hesitate in answering?”

“Well, I am truly happy. But I wish…  ‘

“What? What is it you wish for?”

“I’m embarrassed to say.”

“I bet I know the answer. It’s probably the same answer my ex-husband gave me. And he, also, was reluctant to discuss it. It’s sex isn’t it? You’re not getting enough.”

“Yes. It’s so unfair, the disparity between men and women. I hate it that I’m so… so needy. And it’s not like my wife is celibate either.”

“How needy are you?” she asked with a cocked eyebrow.

“Hmm… two, three times a week. But my wife, Marilyn, two, three times a month would suit her perfectly. It’s about a fivefold gap.”

Rachel nodded. “That sounds about right. Welcome to Mars and Venus. But, you lucky boy, you just happened to catch me on one of my two days. Are you sure I can’t tempt you?” She undid the top button of her blouse.

“I’m quite sure you can temp me, but, I’m sorry …”

Her hands dropped and she met his eyes evenly. “Good for you. You’re just as solid at 48 as you were at 18. And even more handsome.” She smiled. Kaufman blushed. Then she asked, “So, what will you do about it - the disparity? Is it bad enough that you might leave you wife?”

“No, I don’t think that’s the answer. A lot of people choose that road, I know, but would another mate solve the problem? I doubt it. A buddy of mine, Neil, is on his fourth marriage. He’s always saying: ‘Women, they all work for the same union.’ We laugh, but there is a kernel of truth. Of course, you could say the same thing for men. No, I love my wife with all my heart - really I do. What is the answer? Maybe you can tell me?”

Rachel drew back into her chair, crossed her legs, and pondered. Even in deep thought she was sexy. “I don’t know if I have the answer, Kaufman, but I’ll tell you what I believe. There’s got to be a reason for the dissimilarity. We’re hard-wired this way, men and women. I’ve watched all the shows: Oprah, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, and I know that it’s healthy for men to get it several times a week. In fact, Dr. Oz says three or four times a week prolongs a man’s life. Yet, in my own marriage there were always deterrents: kids, career, job stress; they take a toll. I tell you when I hit the sheets intimacy was about the last thing on my mind. I regret it now, not being more passionate. I can understand why my ex succumbed to that bright-eyed young hottie.”

“If you knew it was such a problem, why didn’t you do something about it? Surely you could see the writing on the wall?”

“I didn’t do anything for exactly the same reason you’re not. I didn’t know what to do. I tried to discuss it but my ex wasn’t a good communicator. Or maybe it was me. Usually we just ended up in a silent-treatment stalemate. After a while, we sort of gave up.”

“Neil thinks prostitution should be legalized. That that would solve the problem.”

“I don’t buy it. If prostitution were legalized, it would have to be so for both men and women. How would you feel greeting your wife, all aglow, after her night out? No, I think intimacy is only half physical. You can’t get the other half from a whore.”

“I agree. But that still doesn’t answer the question. What’s a couple to do? I mean, if you could do it over, what would you do differently?”

“Well, for starters, I’d do a better job training him on my needs. How’s a girl supposed to feel sexy when she slaves nine to five then cooks dinner and cleans it while the old man sits in his easy chair swilling beer over the ballgame? I just might be in a wetter mood if the TV were kept off and I had a little help in the kitchen. But I let my ex get away with it from day one and the habit got entrenched. And to make matters worse, neither he nor I required the kids to chip in much. Yes, given another chance the rule would be that keeping the home is everyone’s job, not just the wife’s.”

“You might not believe this, Rachel,” Kaufman said, “but I, our family, already does those things. And still, Marilyn seems exhausted and disinterested most nights.”

“Well, then here’s what it comes down to. I think everyone recognizes that men and women are apples and oranges. But if your relationship is basically healthy, to satisfy one another you both have to step out of your comfort zones and do things you normally wouldn’t. Like for instance, when was the last time you took your gal shopping? Or on a romantic getaway?”

“Um, let me think…”

“Exactly my point. If you need to think that hard, you’re not working at it enough. But then, to be fair, when was the last time Marilyn seduced you? She knows your love language is sex. You see, this is what I would do differently. Exactly what I’m doing to you now. I’d seduce him. Regularly. Even when I didn’t feel like it. Let me show you…”

Rachel dug a hand into her purse, rummaged around and emerged with a small tube of lotion and a Hershey’s Kiss. She grinned, peeled the foil from the candy, squeezed a puddle of lotion into her palm, and slid her body close to Kaufman’s. “Would you like a Kiss? Are you sure I can’t tempt….”

“Yes. No. I’m not sure. You make me… weak.”

“Here, give me your hand.”

His hand met hers, the lotion between lubricating their clasp. In a moment the ointment was smeared thin and had become warm. Rachel cooed softly, “You’ve always wanted to touch me… here.”

“Goodness… that feels nice,” he slurred around the dissolving chocolate. “I’ve fantasized about this a thousand times.”

In a moment, Kaufman’s hands were concealed beneath her clothing. Rachel’s eyes drifted closed, savoring. Her breathing deepened. “Don’t stop, please…”

The undeniable pressure in him again escalated, this time stronger than before. Then, suddenly, he pulled back. “No, Rachel, I’m sorry. This is wrong. I love my wife.”

Rachel’s eyes opened and she frowned. “Yes… yes, I know. Ah, but she is a lucky girl. Go to her now, Kaufman. She calls. Good by.”

Kaufman’s eyes lifted and he rolled over, pulling covers with him. Nascent sunlight peeked through window blinds announcing morning.

“Sleep well?” Marilyn asked, genuinely, with a smile.

“Yes,” he answered, clearing some sleep from his eyes. “You?”

“Like a brick, thanks.” She rolled over to face him. “I must’ve really been beat last night. Hey, you’re smiling. What were you dreaming of, hot betties?”

He considered the question a moment. Then said, “Yes… in fact I had a dream about a girl I knew in school. And she was pretty hot. But, I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t even do it in my dreams.”

“Do what? Her? Are you telling me that you’re so faithful you couldn’t cheat on me even in a dream?”

“I don’t know whether to feel proud or impotent. But, yes, that’s right. It was Rachel Lang. She was coming on like a tiger. I wavered a little, but then I told her no, that I was married and I loved my wife.”

“Get out. You’re kidding, right?”

“No. Not even. Those were my exact words.”

“Did you want to, though, make love to her?

“Yes, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t.”

“Kaufman, do you know how exciting that is? For me, I mean?”

“Really?”

“Yes, it makes me all tingly. Here, give me your hand. Touch. See? A woman wants to know that her man is attractive to other women but also that he’ll always come home to her.”

“Darlin’, it is true, you are sooo my one and only.”

“Ooh, I like that. Why don’t you c’mon over here and show me where that hot dream of yours was leading, now that you’re with the right girl.”

Marilyn rolled on her side, reached back and pulled her husband close for some spooning. Kaufman snuggled forward, enveloping her with eager hands. He whispered in her ear, “You know, mama, it’s been a while since we’ve taken a weekend for ourselves. A friend told me about this cozy bungalow on the water in Eastsound right next to a swanky, hole-in-the-wall café…”

By T.K. Garrison
The Builder’s Engineer ™
All rights reserved.
Contact us for reprint permission

Dear Builder’s Engineer, I got called to fix a large sheetrock crack in an older home. It was obvious the problem was foundation settlement. But the house is built on a solid bedrock outcrop. I didn’t know rock settled. Your thoughts?

Rick M., Golden, CO 

Rick,

Solid rock does not settle, particularly under the relatively light loading a residence would apply. Even fractured rock is very unlikely to settle unless an earthquake or bomb blast were involved.

I was involved in a similarly puzzling project once. It was a large custom home built on a rock outcrop at the top of knoll. The owners complained they’d had the same drywall crack repaired several times, but it always came back.

I knew the problem had to be settlement, but on solid bedrock? Into the crawl space I went. All the footings were placed directly on exposed bedrock - except one. Unfortunately, this particular footing supported a main roof beam and a floor girder. With a little probing and digging, I discovered a five-foot deep ‘bowl’ in the rock. At first I couldn’t tell it was a bowl because it was full of soil and leaves. The original contractor, rather than scoop this debris out, built his footing on top of it. Over time, the material decomposed, compacted and settled. The rest of the house, being built literally on rock, didn’t budge. This is called differential settlement.

The fix was to jack the settled area up, scoop out the bad soil, pour a new footing directly on bedrock, and let the house back down. Had the bedrock been sloping, rotohammered steel rebar dowels would have been embedded into the rock and extended into the new footing to keep it from sliding.

Drywall cracking is caused by structural movement of some sort. If it’s not vertical settlement, then it almost has to be lateral (sideways) movement.

I recall a project with severe plaster cracking on all four exterior walls. It was an old schoolhouse converted into a residence. The foundation was sound, the floors level. Inspection of the roof framing told a different story however.

The roof was hip style, fairly steep. Rafters bore on the exterior walls and extended upward, terminating at the ridge or a hip, depending on their location. Serious problem: there were no collar ties or ceiling joists; nor were there any ridge beams or hip beams. In short, there was nothing to take the outward thrust of the rafters, except the exterior walls. Over the years, all four exterior walls had bowed outward - nearly a foot in the middle of the long walls. It was a miracle this place did not implode in one of our snowy, northwest winters.

The fix was to jack the roof system up, and using come-alongs, winch the exterior walls back together as best we could. Then new hip and ridge beams were installed, their bearing extended via new posts and bearing walls, all the way down through the structure to existing or new footings below. It was a messy, expensive job, but the insurance company paying the bills determined it was more cost effective than a complete roof system replacement.

In summary, wherever you’ve got significant drywall cracking, you’ve got structural movement. The trick is determining the cause and properly fixing it. Simply replacing or patching the drywall is like putting a band aid over a broken bone - it won’t work. To complicate matters, a small amount of cracking may be due to wood shrinkage - a common phenomenon, especially in newer homes. So, if in doubt, don’t be afraid to get a second opinion. The wrong ‘fix’, in the long run, will cost far more than a couple or few hours of an expert’s time.

By T.K. Garrison
The Builder’s Engineer ™
All rights reserved.
Contact us for reprint permission

This particular column has been rattling around in my mind for several years. I just couldn’t figure out how to write it politically correctly. (I still may not have succeeded. By the way, I know the correct word is “idiocy” not idiotdom, but idiotdom feels more appropriate to this piece.)

Lying in bed last night it hit me. Idiots are like the bags of popcorn movie reviewers use to rate movies. For example, “That movie was so bad, it only earns one-half bag of popcorn out of four”. Once I landed on this brilliant parallel, I knew a riveting column would spout forth from my fingertips come morning, which it did.

Idiots come in varying degrees; I think we would all agree on that. The vexing problem becomes how to categorize the really bad ones as opposed to the mildly-bad. Of course there are no good idiots.

Brace yourself world, I have solved this dilemma.

There are precisely three levels of idiotdom. I was tempted to recognize four, but to so finely divide idiotic behavior into four levels started giving me a headache, so there are only three.

Next, what to call each level? If I wasn’t an engineer, I’d have the creativity to think of some really cool descriptions, like: “Cementhead Level”, “Sack-of-Hammers Level”, and “Dull-Hoe Level”, but I am an engineer, so we’ll have to live with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.

• Level 1. This is the least-serious level of idiotdom. In fact, we all have been guilty of Level 1 behavior at some point. For example, once as a young framer, I was eager to show off how well I could pound nails. We actually used real hammers in those days (as opposed to pneumatic nail guns) and I had a hammer to be proud of. It was a 32 oz Vaughn with a razor-sharp serrated face. Yessir, I was quite the hammering machine. Well, we started a new job and I was put in charge. The Owner happened to be on site that morning and I went over our plan for the day with him. Making sure that he would witness my massive hammering prowess, I quickly grabbed some 2×4’s and lifted a 16d nail into position. Only top-notch framers can pound a 16d all the way in one hit. I took aim, hefted my Vaughn and brought ‘er down hard. Right on my thumb. Off came the thumbnail. Off came a chunk of flesh. Blood spilled on the 2×4s. Yep, that razor-sharp serrated face didn’t let my thumb slip off, not one eyeota.

The point about Level 1 idiotdom is the perpetrator knows better but still makes a poor choice. However, at this level, the consequences are not particularly far-reaching nor overly grave.

• Level 2. This idiot makes unwise choices, but probably can’t help it due to some innate deficiency. It is tough to get mad at a Level 2 because they’re trying their best, but the bulb just doesn’t glow very brightly no matter how high the voltage is cranked. I need not illustrate with examples; you, no doubt, can readily think of several.
• Level 3. This idiot is far and away the most maddening, and usually is downright destructive. To qualify for Level 3 you must:
  •  Have just enough intelligence to convince others you’re smart, and
  •  Be in a position of some authority.

Here is an example: Chilly Verde (not his real name) runs a certain governmental department. Chilly is too inexperienced for the authority with which his position empowers him. Unfortunately, Chilly can never be wrong, nor can he ever learn something, apparently because he is in charge. It is his governmental duty to know all and espouse said knowledge upon humanity, to their magnanimous benefit. The problem is Chilly truly knows very little, and worse, his Very Important Dictates cost his humble subjects Real Dollars. But what is worst of all is he is beyond reproach. He has just enough intelligence to know when someone is trying to teach him something. When that Bad Thing happens, little sirens go off in his head and imaginary concrete walls suddenly spring up making him impenetrable to any common sense or knowledge input. Chilly has literally cost certain developers and contractors millions of dollars, and is single-handedly driving business (tax dollars) from his jurisdiction.

Here is another example: Rhonda Rhadish sits on the board of directors of a small investment group. Times are tough and they decide to sell a particular industrial property to stay solvent. Several buyers show interest and a fair offer is received. The group’s attorney, a well-respected fellow who’s been in the business a long time, suggests taking the offer with a few minor counter-offer items. The board agrees, except Rhonda insists on getting another attorney’s opinion. Of course, that attorney can only gain from the project if he is in the driver’s seat, but he’s not, so he poo-poo’s the deal and suggests firing the original attorney. Rhonda falls for it, hacks off the board, and winds up scaring away the buyers. The group is left holding the bag and disintegrates into lawsuits.

In summary, a person can work with a Type 1 or Type 2 idiot because said idiot is generally open to rational discussion.

But how do you work with a Type 3? I have attended seminars and read books on this topic (they’re entitled politically correct things like, “How to Work With Difficult People”). The conventional wisdom is to confront them with questions. But Type 3’s don’t dwell in the rational world; theirs is chaos. If, for example, I were to ask Chilly Verde, “Why can’t a steel frame be used instead of this shear wall?” His answer would be something like, “Because steel is gray, and gray upsets my poodle.” Then I’d reply with something logical, but by that time sirens would be going off in his head and the discussion would be over. Call me a coward, but when confronted with a Level 3 these days, I look for the nearest exit.

By T.K. Garrison
The Builder’s Engineer ™
All rights reserved.
Contact us for reprint permission

Dear Tim,

It seems to me the real money in our industry is in land development, not contracting. I’ve got a small nest-egg saved and am thinking of buying some land and doing a small subdivision. Your advise?

Scott B. Oak Harbor, WA

Scott,
My advise is proceed with extreme caution. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. Fact is, very few rookie-developers succeed. Indeed, even well-seasoned professionals commonly fail or reap only marginal returns.

In the hundreds of subdivisions and short plats I’ve been involved with, maybe 10% made close to the money the owners thought they would going in. Here’s why:

Know your costs - ALL your costs. Most land divisions fail before they ever start because costs were not defined correctly going in. I find it unbelievable how many would-be developers scratch out a few numbers on a napkin, look at their ‘bottom line’, grin, and start dumping buckets of hard-earned cash into hopeless losers. For example, I know two semi-retired gentlemen, one an attorney and the other a real estate broker, who in the early nineties teamed and bought several large tracts of land - sight unseen! They did no due diligence, no feasibility studies, no environmental research - nothing. Instead, they hired engineers, surveyors, and wetland consultants, expecting them to magically transform their pipe dreams into reality. When costs shot through the roof, years ticked by, and still they had no approved lots to sell, they blamed the consultants, jurisdictional personnel, and everyone else unfortunate enough to be involved. In reality, their failures were sealed the second they took title.

Land cost has to be right. Ever wonder why so many ‘prime’ pieces of real estate languish so long on the market? It is because smart developers invest only in bargains. Many consider land their only variable cost. Infrastructure and consultant’s costs will be what they are no matter what. So if a bargain is to be had, it’s got to be on the land itself.

Know your end buyer. How can you be sure there will be a buyer in the end? Will you have the right product at the right time? I know of many beautiful new lots still on the market after several years, priced below any sort of profitability threshold. Developers built them but the buyers did not come.

Be well-funded. I can’t count the number of plats that started well enough, had the potential to make money, but fizzled and failed because the owners ran out of cash. Land division projects are front-end cash intensive. You’ve got to have the staying power to cover consultants’ costs, permit fees, infrastructure construction, environmental remediation, loan interest, etc. - all before seeing a penny of income. With the loan interest meter ticking, time becomes your enemy. My rule of thumb is: However long you think it will take to get approvals, double it, at least.

Beware the woodwork! Are any neighbors upset at you? You never know who’ll come out of the woodwork to noisily and ferociously oppose your project. Some are backed by well-funded watchdog groups. Even if they can’t beat you in court, dragging you through the process may be enough to sink the project.

Develop only flat, dry, non-vegetated, wildlife-inhospitable, non-historic, barren lunar desert. Anything else, and you run the risk of encountering an environmentally sensitive area and being barred from your mission. Of course, I exaggerate. But the point should not be underestimated.

To summarize, though handsome returns are possible, I wouldn’t expect any more profit from land development than could be made in the stock market or other investment mechanisms. But certainly do expect a large amount of time, effort, cash input, and very likely, frustration.

Infomertial Postscript. I’ve been hired so many times by developers to help them determine a potential development’s feasibility, I wrote a computer program (Excel-based) to assist with the analysis. It is called Land Development Proforma by ConstructionCalc (my software company). It comes with a 50-page white paper on the subject: how-to; what to watch out for; tips and tricks; which consultants to hire; when; the money aspect; and so on. If you’re thinking about subdividing, for about $100, this program and white paper could be the best investment you ever make.

Personal Postscript. I wannabe a rich land baron myself. But I don’t put my money on land. The ante is extremely high and it’s just plain risky.

By T.K. Garrison
The Builder’s Engineer ™
All rights reserved.
Contact us for reprint permission

How many lots can you cram onto an acre of land? Five? Ten? Fifteen? Would you believe 25, or more? And I’m not talking “units” as in multi-story.

Any developer knows, the more lots, the merrier in terms of a subdivision’s profit potential. Since you can’t make an acre bigger, to squeeze more lots onto one, you must make the lots smaller. But who wants a tin can for a lot?

It turns out lots of folks do; if the can is designed right.

I didn’t make up the title to this column, it is the title of a seminar I recently attended, put on by a business associate and principal of Mithun Architects in Seattle, Bill Kreager. Actually, this particular seminar is the sequel to another Bill taught a year ago. For me to attend a sequel which isn’t showing at a local matinee tells you it’s got to be good.

In the good old days, let’s call them the “Leave it to Beaver” days, the majority of the home-buying public was the nuclear family, with 2.3 kids, a dog, two cars (a “sedan” and a “station-wagon”) and a chicken in every pot. Today, that demographic represents, according to Bill, less than 20% of the home-buying public. The other 80% are mostly empty-nesters and singles. Let’s call this new demographic the “nestles”.

So where do nestles want to live? Well, the traditional 3-bedroom, 2-bath split-level house on 15,000 square feet of maintenance isn’t the correct answer. They want attractive, traditional-looking smaller homes on small lots, with little or no upkeep responsibilities. They want to be near shopping and services. Walking trails and lots of maintained open space are important. Oh, and by the way, price matters too.

There is a good reason Bill’s seminars are always packed. Yes, he is an excellent speaker, not to mention entertaining (my favorite slide shows a dozen smiling people crammed into a smallish hot tub. Bill explains that high-density can be fun.) More important, anyone in the building industry needs to be aware that this is a vital, upcoming trend in housing; an opportunity not to be missed.  

And I’m not just talking about those of us in the private sector. We can’t develop and build things bureaucracies don’t allow. Heck, we have enough trouble building things they do allow. A huge problem is that many jurisdictions still operate under codes and ordinances created in the Beaver Cleaver days. Some have been updated; layered with gobs of spaghetti and other labyrinthine measures, but the end product is still mostly unmanageable. New, simple, progressive-thinking codes are needed.

Bill showed several examples of urban infill projects that look great, fit with the character of the neighborhood, provide homes for many, and increase the tax base of some lucky jurisdiction. Okay, so the projects can make the developers generous profits too, but isn’t that what win-win is all about?

Specifically, how is desirable high-density, low-rise housing accomplished? Here are a few tips:

• Use narrow lots, minimizing side yards and maximizing the number of lots per lineal foot of road.
• Front houses on parks and other open space to give each residence the feel of a spacious yard / recreation area.
• Use landscaping to contain and disguise stormwater treatment and detention facilities.
• Use narrow streets. Not only does this allow more useable lot area, it decreases non-stormwater-friendly pavement. Fire marshals will be concerned, but there is precedence to demonstrate it can work well.
• Use alleys in lieu of avenues.
• Use carriage style homes (living space above parking areas).
• Use cottage style homes (homes fronting on common landscaped walkway areas with group parking in back).
• Mix in smartly designed multi-family dwellings. Bill showed several examples of multi-plexes that looked just like another large house in the neighborhood.
• High-density can be a terrific product, but it won’t work everywhere. Case in point: there is a charming, brightly colored, well-built and planned cottage home community on the outskirts of a town near me. It’s not selling worth a hoot because it is too far removed from the downtown core. Nestles (apparently) like walking or taking the bus.

Lastly, employ a good architect to help with layout and site design. Engineers have been cookie-cuttering Leave-It-To-Beaver neighborhoods for decades. I’ll be the first to admit I have no business trying to design the attractive neighborhoods Bill showed. Storm drainage and sewer - fine, I can still handle those. Goes downhill; always has, always will. But when it comes to “form”, well, that’s just not my bag.