ETA
I would also point out that you couldn’t find any vocation of any sort that “always” (your word) has “honest and competent” people.
So you’re right about caveat emptor.
But the implication that contractors are playing games and ripping people off is great SDMB fare, but like other businesses an exception not the rule. (as you implied)
Without knowing where you live and what kid of finish materials you are planning to use, it’s impossible to say. I live in Silicon Valley, and in the nicer areas I’d typically use about $250/sq ft. That would be hardwood floors, tile, granite counters, custom cabinets, wood windows, and built-in appliances.
You must have inferred that and decided to generalize. Then you make the comparison between contractors and highly regulated professionals. So go ahead and recommend to people that they should trust contractors, and all professionals, because there are only few bad apples out there that are the exception to the rule. Things couldn’t possibly go wrong that way.
I knew you’d come around. “Regulations” don’t impute ethics, and some small percentage of every single profession on earth will have a small amount of bad apples.
So yea, thats exactly my recommendation. Contractors are no more untrustworthy than your local butcher, merchant, chiropractor, or priest.
That doesn’t mean that your faith should be blind. Know your contractor. Check references. Use contracts. Inspect the work. Caveat emptor.
But the notion that contractors are installing one thing and charging another, and that’s ‘how the game is played’ is message board sensationalism.
raindog, you’ve definitely convinced me. From now I’ll just say that contractors are just as honest as chiropractors and priests. Congratulations on fighting my ignorance.
Just because you don’t believe in what they practice doesn’t mean they are being dishonest. A person who tells you something they believe to be true is not lying to you.
Yes, that’s an excellent defense for the practices of sleazy contractors, they are delusional. Maybe someone could help them out by equating them to politicians now.
I have homeowners policies with two insurers (one specializes in rural properties) and neither of them actually factor in the cost of replacing your specific house that was damaged or destroyed.
Maybe I misunderstood your point as I quoted because it’s a little cryptic, but at least my insurers wouldn’t assume your foundation didn`t burn down and thus won’t cost money to replace. They just assume, in terms of insurance limits, that you’re replacing your entire house.
Somehow, I don’t think we fixed any ignorance.
Its fashionable to prance into threads and proclaim that -----> insert profession here<------- that the poster [implicitly] knows how the ‘game is played.’
It makes for some tiring themes----that given half a chance every contractor is out to screw you.
I purposely referenced priests, assuming (correctly) you’d take the bait. The fact is, for every bad priest there’s tens of thousands of hard working decent priests, and your apparent ignorance of that fact has you painting all priests with the same brush.
I’d be careful and prudent with my kids and their interaction with a priest ( for which there are much higher stakes than whether I’m charged for 1/2" or 5/8" drywall), ;the same as I would be in building a house.
Some very small percentage of priests and contractors are bad actors. To imply otherwise is simply incorrect.
Do you always bait your trap with your own foot rain? Do everyone a favor and stop trying to help defend contractors. I’ve had enough of your dramatics.
Ummm what? The insurance agent/company has to factor in what it costs to replace your house, otherwise how would they know how large a policy to sell you?
My point was if you had two pieces of land side by side, assume the following: one bare and one with a house on it. The house burns down.
You wish to both rebuild the house and duplicate it on the second piece of property.
Rebuilding the existing house you will not have to excavate for the foundation, pour the concrete for the foundation, trench and install sewers, or run the fresh water from the main.
You will have to do all of these things and quite possibly more on the bare piece of land.
Bottom line it is cheaper to rebuild than it is to build fresh. The estimates of per sq. costs that insurance companies use take that into account.
Yeah, that’s what I thought you were saying. I’m saying you’re wrong. Insurance companies don’t take those differences into account when estimating cost per sq foot.
You’re right that their rebuild cost estimate will be inflated by not taking it into account, but in actuality they don’t take them into account.
The builders I talked to gave a price per sq ft that met local building codes. Including contractor grade appliances, sinks, carpets etc. There’s even a contractor grade bulk paint they buy from suppliers like Sherwin Williams.
Any improvements had to be negotiated separately. For example higher end appliances would be a negotiated extra charge.
IIRC the builders had their own blueprints they were familiar with and liked to build from. If you wanted to use your own custom blueprints it would take him longer to build and that meant extra charges.
Yes, the levels have to do with how smooth the work is (for formal definitions see http://nationalgypsum.com/resources/tech-talk-revisiting.htm). If you want high-gloss, smooth walls, you need the highest level of work on the drywall because any little imperfection is going to be visible. If you use flat paint and orange peel texture (like 90% of homes and apartments) then level 3 drywall is sufficient.
As is often the case, the marginal benefit of the higher levels comes at a significant premium, something like the difference in price between marble countertops and formica even though both are functionally equivalent. In drywall work, the premium is mostly labor - more labor in quantity and more skilled laborers.
Not according to the training I received when I took and passed my fire and casualty license.
Do you have a cite that says otherwise?
Does anybody know roughly how much it costs to add an upper level floor to a house?
This is also somewhat regional. Blueboard and skimcoat is more common here in New England, and presumably we have more skilled plasterers available than some areas. One of the biggest advantages is that it goes much faster (one layer of plaster instead of three layers of mud with drying time required between each layer) and much less dust is generated (the plaster doesn’t get sanded after each coat). It’s usually worth the extra cost.
In my own house, even though I could have rocked and taped myself, I found a way to come up with money for blueboard and skim coat.
An economical alternative approach is to raise your house and add a new first floor underneath. The house and foundation have to be constructed in a suitable manner, and with all additions you have to consider if your utilities are sufficient. Two friends put additions on there house recently and had to upgrade the heating systems (gas forced air in one, oil hot water in the other), and one had to upgrade his electrical service and septic system. A lot of savings come from raising the house because the roof doesn’t have to be torn down and reconstructed. The addition of stairs, and routing of new wiring and piping are all done in the lower part which is being newly constructed.
I can give you the name of an excellent contractor in New England that has specialized in this type of construction for decades. I’m currently considering this for my own house.
Would this be the case even for a two-story house with a basement? I appreciate the offer for the contractor, but it’s not something we would do for at least 5 years or so. I was just curious as to the general cost. Thanks though.