Keeping Down The Cost

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 51, 1 March 1941, Page 13

Keeping Down The Cost

LOW first cost holds an appeal to us all in one form or another. To some it is irresistible, but it influences everyone. It is weighed in the balance by the wise virgins, and they use value on the other side of the scales. Unfortunately, we cannot all be wise. Many of us have not the information at our finger tips to enable us to judge what is value in home-building. To these I say the money spent on expert and unbiased advice is the best investment.

Others lia\e guinifd .-on u , exporiencv from the building of home* previously, mid feel they know all about it. To them I say. that ;tfter preparing tin , [duns ami specification* for over a thousand housee, I am still learning.'. N'ew material*, new conditions ami ne.w methods come to light continuously. ■Since the beginning of 1941 our paternal Government has brought in three fresh regulations. One makes the. provision of protection against termite infection compulsory. Another makes it neeeesury In obtain the consent of the Minister of Finance before, erecting a house to co«it over £2000. And yet another demands the. consent of the Minister of Supply before you can u/*e iron tor the roof of your new home. At this rate of progress we will soon require a Philadelphia lawyer working , in conjunction with our architect. Some of the new materials are not a> good as the older ones, and the aani« applies to new methods. What chance has th* , amateur of judging the merit* and demerits of these as compared with the considered judgment of the expert who ha* Jtmlied them from c\ery single '. Wide Range of Tenders. Other*, again., are delightfully trusting, and feel that they can cut the eo*t of building by eliminating the architect. Two and a half per cent on £1000 stiil amounts to £25, and iluti i* a lot of money to save—but do you save it? Let us assume that we get hold of a perfectly honourable and reliable builder (they are still available). I aek is he entirely impervious to self-interest? Will he give yo"u ae keen a price as he would if he had to compete for the job by tender? But that i« not all. I called tender* recently for a large job, and I limited my tenderers to "approved builders"— men of sound financial and commercial standing. The tenders received were £2720, £2700. £2650, £2.500, £2386, £2320, £2-2.50 and £2247. Each tenderer was dependable and classed A.I. in the building trade, each one wanted the job, and each thought—and honestly *o—that his price, was the lowest for which the job could be done. The highest man eaid he thought the lowest man was mad, and the lowest man thought the others wanted a fat profit. Suffice, it to say the job was finished to the complete satisfaction of" the owner and myself, and when I asked the builder how he came out of it, he eaid he was quite (satisfied. F know only too, well that he was not on the wrong side of the ledger, because I had informed him very early on the. job. and on instructions from the owner, that if he came out on the. wrong side the owner would meet him. I know, too, that the owner was satisfied, because I have had three other jobs from his family.

On other j<>l>- the order luie been completely reversed, mid I don't pretend to account for it. To err i< very human. When I questioned u tenderer's prica the other d.iv .is being quite at variance with his u>ual effort*, he replied that it surprised luin to such mi extent that he would "lndly procliifi , his figures u> riliow how it wa# made up. l-xainination >howed thnt quite inadvertently he h*d ndiled £ISO _/ in twiee and had made a mistake of £100 in hi> additions. But for this check hif- price would have stood at £2*9 2/ higher. Tim brings me to another illustration of what ran happen. A man celled to dii-onss I'liins ami r-pei-i liration, and h? a result the plan published this week wee prepared for his approval. He took it away with my statement that it should he built lor £1200. In ;i few days be returned to *>ay n builder had told him it could not possibly be done for less (han £1000. Kxpressing my siirpriie, I offered f> get him a price based on what pood builders know my *pecifiraiion tr> ho. This was ajrreed ti">, and the price. I obtained was £1-10. Readers who have followed the?? article* know full well what I demand in a specification, and I Migjrefct that some builders—fortunately not many— would assert \ery po*ithe.]y that ths liouie illustrated could not be built to my requirement? for less than fl-VHi. Equally fortunate is the fart that there are quite a few really re.liabl<> builder;who would do it for uiuler £1250 and keep right up to the Inter of the specification. There are two angle? from which to tackle a speci fleation. The fir?t end th-3 only honest, way is to make provision for everything the owner w*nt« and can hope to get for the money. Even a person who has derived his experience from the building of these houses in his lifetime can hardly be expected to know what he can pet for a given turn of money, but he should choose for bi* a-dvUer one \\ell vcreed in pre*ent-day \aluc«. If his choice falls on an architect, he should pet someone who is di*interested ns to juice exnept only to the limits >et l,v his instruction?.' It necessarily follow* that if the architect gets him really good value, the result uill lx , fees plus goodwill, and the latter is worth ten times the former. The other anfile oi approach is made by the interested party. One may recommend a certain course of action be cause he knows that this will result in his goods being specified or used to the exclusion of nil other*. Fortunately tbl? practice is not as common as it wa«. The builder ii? a vitally fcitercsted party. If you were a builder with a keen *pprc-

i-iation ..t ;ill your obligation* to \ <«;ir family, and a client came aiong a-kiiii: you to build his home for, miv. £12.">; i, would you strive your utmo>t to think up every possible convenience mid include all the costly and charming accc--*oriee that make the house a homr Would yon not, in the intere-t of thkids, be tempted to suggest that i tcrrazzo sink top could not possibly I.e. included in the job? The ippecificntimi should be. prepared for you nnd \om interests—and your'e alone—should Inparamount. This Week's Small Home. If you got what you want, phi* ■ r minus what sound practice, comfort nn-l charm demand or reject, for the. lowe-t price that competitive tendering can pro duce. then you have not only kept d<">« n the eo<.t. but you lia\e c>t really soo-l value. The last few articles lino shown and described large homes. This week we illustrate a small home, but not the irreducible niiniruum. That it is diarming nn one will deny, and the littl-.-thinjrs" which build up it* attra«ti\ are all present. Take away tho tilod

Article and Plana contributed bv J. L. HANNA.

rnof. the jii.li.ml entrance j-oich. tlio i-iicular-t<ip)H'd -;;i<iic.« nn.l the brick biii»e and vmi have the. piotuio and detracted from the \alne. Alter the .irioupiiiL' <>f tin- brtthvoom. kitchen. Irtundrv and W.C. and yon will almon fur certain ;id.l t<i the co-t t »f phjnibinc .ind drainage. Wii-fo room i* reduced to n minimum mill Act every livinpr room h.is separate iici'i-r. l!i -e. many hnu=i>t you have t<i V" throiijrli the dining room to pet to tinkitchen. .\- dr-imiod. thi* little home would L'ct the nicirninj! «-nn in bedroom 1. tlie bathroom and the kitchen, and to me i lii —i- an ideal ni rangement. The dininp 10-iin and lixiiig rooms pet the midday ■an. and bedrooms 1 and "2 and the living loom would pi-t the afternoon Mm. The view in front we* just street, and nothing e.'te. *o th.it the owner c!e. idcil to make hi* own view in the lorni of a beautiful garden, and I can imagine many happy hours spent in th« living and dininji room* as he gaz«s on ;hr dawning perfection of hi* own handiwork. Thi* home .-ould he built in Auckland 10-day. v r'l tini-hed and fully equipped. Ji-1 £12ln.