We had always heard about the contentious relationship between contractors and architects. Like the Hatfields & McCoys. Or the Red Sox and Yankees. Maybe not like snowmobilers and cross-country skiers, but close. And since this is our first time working with an architect — who seems quite nice — we were never sure “why?”
Until now.
Last week, we were told that the contractor and architect feud has its roots in the first phase of house construction — the foundation. Apparently, architects generally like their houses to “fit in.” They’ll set foundations lower in the the ground.
Contractors and excavators — on the other hand — prefer them “proud” and higher. Often leads to a drier basement. Easier to dig.
That last point is especially important in a bid process. A contractor can shave dollars off a bid by specifying a higher foundation. Which might be fine, but we’d rather it be planned than a surprise.
So rather than distribute the bid packages as promised last week, Rob and our excavator spent Friday morning with a transit level to get accurate elevations across the building site. It’s like asking Israel and Palestine get together to survey the West Bank.
And everything links back to this single nail. It’s “ground zero” for all calculations relating to the house, septic, barn and Dash Landing as a whole. The process only took a few hours, but it’s going to save a ton of arguing in a few weeks.
We look forward to returning to Norway.
A House In A Field 
Good for you, this is a very good start. This issue was, in actual fact, the first argument we had between architect and contractor, but we did not understand the context. Thanks for clarifying. And good luck with all the rest of the conflicts.
Pingback: A journey of a thousand miles starts with a big meeting. | A House In A Field