One day last year, while D was working alongside our stonemason, he overheard a visitor to the site (a new tradesperson) comment to the stonemason, almost bitterly, “What do you care, you’re working on a million-dollar house?”

We had never thought of it as a million-dollar house. It’s just our home, the last home we will live in, if we have the freedom to choose where we live in our dotage. If you’ve been following the “Spending and Saving” page, though, it would appear that this IS a million-dollar house, especially if you include in its value the “Saving” contributions we’ve made.

When we worked on the design, more than two years ago, we were asked by architects and the regional district building department, what our budget was, and we had no idea. We have just been building as we can afford it (with help from the local credit union!)

Interestingly, from my point-of-view, a homeowner-built house is assessed lower than a professionally-built home and its green features don’t appear to be a factor in its assessment (this I gather from talking to the assessor who came around to determine a value.) I could be wrong about this. If any reader knows better, let me know, please. When the assessment notices come out, the neighbourhood’s property values seem to be based on square footage and number of bedrooms (we have a smaller square footage than the homes in our area and only two bedrooms.)

To readers who may be interested in building green but are discouraged by its high cost, I have some comments and suggestions which may encourage you:

1. The actual cost to build our home is closer to $660,000, or $244 per square foot, after I deduct the cost to build the studio and the landscaping/land-shaping/garden.

2. The studio, using insulated concrete forms (ICFs), has been a bargain to build (and it’s green-to-the-bones!) It weighs in at $94 per square foot. I know that it doesn’t have a kitchen or a bathroom, but it is a basic, well-insulated building that would pass the EnergyGuide 80+ratings.  If we did it over again, I would seriously consider building the whole house with ICFs, then just use the expensive spray foam insulation in the ceiling. That way, you could avoid the whole rainscreen headache and cost. The thing is, you’d have to be sure of your design – not so easy to alter this building material once it’s built. On the other hand, ICFs are just Lego blocks, that come with excellent instructions, and a careful, logical homeowner with more time than we had, could build with this product him/herself.

3. If you build on a level lot, the foundation would cost about $60, 000 less.

4. Our rentals (forms/scaffolding/toilet/storage bin/generator) cost over $16,000. If we were smarter about this building stuff,  we would have bought a generator (or got a temporary pole for Hydro hookup) and a simple two-stage scaffolding to move around the house as needed. Both could be sold afterward. We also could have built a bigger storage shed and biffy for the framing crew, rather than renting a bin and toilet. And, if we had used ICFs (see #2 above) no forms would need to be rented or taken apart after the pour.

If we had taken this advice before WE started building, we could have built just as green, but for $191/square foot. Mind you, if you build before the reversal of the HST in 2013 (with its additional 7% sales tax on labour) it will cost you at least $18000 more. If you’re contemplating building in BC, I would recommend waiting until after the HST is reversed.

Recently I attended a Green Builders Forum offered by the Sunshine Coast Regional District for  builders, developers, realtors or anyone contemplating building a new home as a ‘homeowner builder’. It provided an opportunity to:
1.       Discuss 2012 Building Code changes – a significant shift in building requirements across the province
2.       See a hands-on demonstration of air leakage testing
3.       Review important new building techniques to save time and money
4.       Learn about new guidelines for EnerGuide and Energy Star

Murray Frank, from Constructive Home Solutions for the Homeowner Protection Office, gave a fast-paced and most informative rundown of the new Energuide requirements. The salient point he made was that, to raise the Energuide rating to the soon-to-be-required 80+ level for new homes, it will cost the builder an average of only $8000 more than it currently costs. This estimate was based on sample homes constructed in (if I remember correctly) Edmonton, Kelowna and Vancouver, and it can vary depending on labour costs.

Since it has cost us considerably more to build green (I estimate at least $60,000), I was skeptical about this claim, until he explained that it’s just the airtight, well-insulated building envelope (including non-thermal-bridging structure and windows and doors) that can bring the home to 80+. These are the essentials the builder invests in at the outset, steps that would be difficult and expensive to remediate after the house is built. Other energy-saving strategies, such as energy-star appliances, heat recovery ventilation, air source heat pump and solar or on-demand hot water for example, can be added on in later years to improve the rating even more.

I also learned that Fortis, BC Hydro, Federal and Provincial governments, and the regional district are providing incentives for building to this Energuide level now. Up to $2200 in rebates from BC Hydro, a deduction from the cost of a building permit, and, as before, considerable grants to retrofit existing homes. Some examples: furnace replacement – up to $1290; air source heat pump- up to $2790; tankless hot water heater – up to $675; Energy Star windows and doors – up to $100 ea ($3500 worth in our house); insulation in attic, exterior walls, basement and crawlspace – up to $4425; heat recovery ventilator – up to $1175; energy star appliances – up to $200. I listed those particular examples because that’s what we have included in our home. However, we do not qualify for ANY of those incentives – up to $16855(!) because we have already built, and this applies to new building permits (or existing home retrofits.) Once again, our project falls between the cracks. Do I sound bitter? We did get a provincial government rebate to the tune of $200 for our energy-star-rated dishwasher and clothes-washer.

I guess I just have to remind myself why we wanted to build green in the first place, and be happy that many others are being “incentivized.” But it’s kind-of hard to take.

(Warning: This is a long, detailed report of the requirements for a rooftop garden and the report of our process. I am well aware that blog posts should be short/concise, but this is not an “E-How” version. I am posting this for people who may wish to design such a garden themselves and need all the detail I wish we had had when we began.)

When our engineer and I were doing research about building a rooftop vegetable/flower garden on the studio building, we found little information. Wikipedia makes an applicable  distinction between a green roof and a rooftop garden:

“Roof garden vs. green roof

A roof garden is actually very different from a green roof, although the two terms are often and incorrectly used interchangeably. A roof garden is an area that is generally used for recreation, entertaining, and as an additional outdoor living space for the building’s residents. It may include planters, plants, dining and lounging furniture, outdoor structures such as pergolas and sheds, and automated irrigation and lighting systems. A roof garden reestablishes the relationship between humans and nature that can be lost in urban environments.

It is different from a green roof in that the considerations are primarily of an aesthetic or recreational nature, whereas a green roof is usually constructed to cover a large area in the most economical and efficient means possible with an emphasis towards improving the insulation or improving the overall energy efficiency of cooling and heating costs within a building.

The panels that comprise a green roof are generally no more than a few inches up to a foot in depth, since weight is an important factor when covering an entire roof surface. The plants that go into a green roof are usually sedum or other shallow-rooted plants that will tolerate the hot, dry, windy conditions that prevail on most rooftop gardens. With a green roof, “the plants layer can shield off as much as 87% of solar radiation while a bare roof receives 100% direct exposure”.

The planters on a roof garden, on the other hand, can generally range anywhere from 6 in up to 3 ft (0.15 to 0.9 m) in depth, depending on the weight-bearing capacity of the roof, and would be placed more for aesthetic purposes. These planters can hold a range of ornamental plants, anything from trees, shrubs, vines, or an assortment of flowers. Since the planters on a roof garden are placed in random fashion, it would be much less likely to provide the environmental and energy benefits of a green roof.”

I went to the Light House Sustainable Building Centre, but there was little help there. They did have some models of green roofs from BCIT’s Centre for Architectural Ecology, but the models didn’t include a full garden on top of a building nor was there an indication of supporting substructure. Communication with the BC Landscape and Nursery Association (BCLNA) revealed a list of landscapers who have qualified to design green roofs. I ordered their publication, “BC Standards for Green Roofs.” The information therein did not address the design of the building to support a rooftop garden. From a qualified BCLNA rooftop landscaper, I learned:

“The best way to proceed with designing your studio is to first determine the live weight of your roof. This is determined by your requirements for soil or growing medium on the roof. If you plan on growing vegetables and shrub then you will need at least 12 inches of soil but 18 would be better. The weight depends on the type of soil used, the rule of thumb is for a light weight growing medium (not soil) is 60 pounds per cubic foot.”

Torsten, an engineering friend of our son, helpfully replied to our enquiry:

“Green roofs consisting of membrane, protection layer, gravel drainage layer, filter fabric, and soil, have been in use over parking garages and underground structures for decades.  Green roofs are not new, despite the fact that they have only become mainstream in the last few years…  they have been around for centuries, and consisted in a multitude of different configurations, including simple wood and dirt.  The real issue these days is with durability and insurance requirements.  The design criteria being implemented are intended to make the systems more durable and rugged, to avoid short term failures and costly insurance claims. The main concerns from insurance firms are leakage and fire.   Leakage can be attributed to premature failure of the membrane due to low quality materials, poor workmanship, insufficient protection from foot traffic (during installation) sharp components and root penetration, or tears due to excessive deck movement.  Fire can result when plants or grasses become dry and brittle during a drought.  You should confirm what requirements need to be met with your insurance provider, or you may run into problems down the road.

A typical torch on membrane is acceptable, but considered low quality and may only provide 15-20 years of expected service life in a properly designed system.  Obviously you would have to use a self-adhered or mechanically fastened base sheet to encapsulate all flammable/wood elements prior to torching on a cap sheet.  Thicker more durable torch on membranes are available from many of the manufacturers.  A high quality green roof membrane may be worth the material cost increase (eg. Siplast Teranap).  The concern with a wood deck would be load capacity and movement.  Wood decks will move significantly more than concrete decks, and put more stress on membranes at plywood joints and perimeter interfaces. Consideration should be given to using a high density moisture resistant cover board over the plywood deck.

Gravel is an excellent drainage layer, but is quite heavy and therefore not often used on green roofs, especially on wood structures.  Same goes for soil…  average topsoil is quite heavy…   modern assemblies use drainage mats and specially formulated growing media to reduce loads on the structure.  If you are planning to use gravel and soil, make sure your structural engineer is on board.  The membrane should be protected from damage by the gravel above, and from root penetration.  Some root barriers could likely do both.  The gravel would have to be wrapped in filter fabric, to prevent contamination from the soil.  Consideration should be given to irrigation systems or similar, as gravel will have poor water retention capability.”

Our engineer could figure out the weight loads, and so, together with what I had learned, he designed the roof with these layers (in order of construction):

1. Into the concrete walls is bolted an 8×12 laminated beam to support the weight in the centre (see photo in point 3.) then a double 2×12 joist, 16″-on-centre construction. 22′ x 24′ is the size of the roof.

2. 3/4″ tongue-and-groove plywood for the roof deck

3. Inside, 15″ batts of R20 insulation covered with vapour barrier. That doesn’t sound like much, but the soil above has some insulating quality as well. Besides, as the building inspector has noted, it’s not a residence, only a studio, so it doesn’t matter so much.

4. Back outside, there are two layers of torch-on roofing. One drain hole at the lower corner of the roof deck collects water to send it to our rainwater collection cistern. (Later edit: we discovered that such nutrient-rich drainwater created a huge algae problem in our waterfall and shallow pond, plus it was too muddy for flushing toilets. We have diverted the rooftop drain to a rain barrel for watering the plants only.)

5. A layer of heavy-duty landscape pond liner, skillfully finished with flashing by the roofer so that there are no perforations in the waterproof layer.

The roofer used an S-finish method of joining the flashing so that he didn’t  have to screw through the fascia boards. Additional insurance by way of silicon caulking.

The flashing corners are custom-made to shed water.

6. 3″ of round 3/4″ grade gravel for a drainage layer. (Round so that sharp edges don’t perforate the waterproof layer.)

7. Heavy-duty landscape root barrier cloth over the gravel.

8. Our garden boxes and pathways.

Around the perimeter of the garden are placed lengths of cedar 2×12. This box will be bolted to the outside of the fascia board with custom-welded steel brackets at the corners. We have found used wrought iron fencing to make the railing on top of the 2×12, which will bring the rooftop railing up to BC Building Code height of 42″.

Into the studio I take you, where yesterday we started applying the wall finish. Recall that we built with insulated concrete forms. This form construction retains the styrofoam on both the outside and inside, so the finish is screwed to the vertical plastic nailing strips imbedded in the styrofoam every 8″.

Most builders apply drywall. Because this is a studio where things will need to be hung from the wall, I sourced (through Craigslist) used commercial slot wall from a film production studio. It’s in great shape and cost 1/5th of its retail price. They threw in 8 boxes of hanging hardware for free (I donated most of them to the Restore.)

Susan and Ken came to visit just in time to help us cut and lift those heavy boards and screw them into the wall. It’s an unusual finish, but I like it! The little mouse family is no more, I’m afraid. But the studio smells so much better.

In the studio, evidence of critters.

Sow bugs, mice, and any manner of insects, birds, and arachnids find their way into the cozy buildings, however they can. In the studio, this means they like the insulation, which we installed last fall so that we could use the building as a painting/finishing/storage area. I recall that the same thing happened when we built our first house, 31 years ago, except that time it was roof rats that had to be banished.

In the nasty fall/winter weather, we did not much feel like working outside on the soffits (the finish under the eaves.)

So, the critters easily crawl up the accommodating styrofoam, run along the plates supporting the roof joists, and burrow into the insulation.

This means we will have to remove the insulation, shake it out, return it to its place (replacing the gross bits) and reapply plastic vapour barrier.

But, first, the soffits are installed. They need to be vented so that there is always air circulation to prevent rotting roof joists.

Mice cannot breach the aluminum vent strip.  But, its holes are large enough to welcome the ubiquitous sow bugs and spiders, so we are putting screen behind the vent strip before nailing on the tongue & groove pine. The pine is first sealed with exterior Varathane front and back to avoid cupping from moisture differentials.

The back of the studio eave is about 1 foot off the ground. This presented a serious problem of access. We decided to use aluminum soffit and full screening here to deter critters so close to the eaves. D contorted himself, risking his neck and back, and managed to attach this material. He’s my hero.

Then, with a load of caulking and spray foam, we blocked every remaining ingress point that we could find.

That’s not to say that the critters won’t find their way in. They still will, because they’re smarter than us.

There hasn’t been much progress in the “green” department. We’re just painting and cleaning forever, and D has installed the T&G bedroom ceiling.

But, this week, John the electrician has been wiring the studio building, which readers will recall has been formed with Logix insulated concrete forms. There are 3 inches of styrofoam on the outside and on the inside walls.

So, the usual installation methods don’t work. Rather, John has become a styrofoam sculptor, carving out the shapes of the fixtures, affixing the wires somehow, then covering up the work with new styrofoam.

100 amp panel just for the studio

carved styrofoam channel for wire

Single or double wires just sit there. More wires in a channel need to be affixed to wood.

Then a new styrofoam strip packs the cavity to keep the wires out of harm's way (wall finish)

This is one of a series of reviews of our trades’ work. You can see them all here.

Update, October 3, 2011:

I called Action Spray Foam to get their WCB number for our Homeowner Protection Office requirements. Joe Pinder returned my call, but when I told him which job it was for, he said, “Oh yes, you wrote that nice blog post,” and hung up. So, my negative review of his company just got worse. Not only did he decline to respond to my complaints at the time I gave them the courtesy of a letter outlining the issues, but he also rudely hung up on me when I asked him for their WCB number. No apology was ever offered.

I have to say that, as spray foam insulation gets more popular, in spite of its heavy cost, I would really like these “green” companies to succeed. But, first, they need to have good customer service, and if there are issues, then they need to address them. If Action Spray Foam had addressed them with me, I would not have written a bad review. The old adages apply: “If you are happy with our service, tell your friends. If you have complaints, tell us.” And: “Bad news travels fast.”

1) Action Spray Foam Review – Vancouver/Surrey

Action Spray Foam Insulation
7591 – 150A Street
Surrey, BC  V3S 6P2
Phone: 778-593-7115
Fax: 778-593-7116
Cell: 778-628-0123
Email: actionsprayfoam@yahoo.com

The company sprays 2-lb soy-based closed-cell foam insulation into walls and ceilings.

The short review: Action Spray Foam does good foam work, but failed to adequately clean up after themselves, nor did they complete the whole insulation job to make it inspection-ready, as promised. Internal problems in the company and a mistake in their quotation affected the crews’ work habits. They did not complete the job on the promised schedule. When I wrote them a follow-up letter, giving them an opportunity to respond, they did not, indicating that they don’t care about good customer relations or feedback.

A more detailed review, if the reader is interested:

I picked up a business card for Action Spray Foam from a home show, possibly the sustainability-focused home show in Vancouver.

When I called the name, Andrew, on the card, he said that he no longer worked there, and gave me owner Joe Pinder’s contact information. Joe referred me to his salesperson, Jeff.

When I called Jeff, he answered his phone with a simple “Hello,” rather than a business-like response such as “Action Spray Foam.” Throughout our continuing communication, he answered his phone this way.

I asked Jeff if Action Spray Foam was willing to work on the Sunshine Coast. He expressed considerable enthusiasm to break into the market here. I asked him for a job quote and told him the square footage of our home, and the size of the crawl space, and emailed him the house plans. He responded quite quickly with an estimate that was quite low, about 1/3 the cost of the only other quote I received for the product.

I asked him if he would prefer to come up to take measurements to help him prepare a more realistic quote. He did eventually come to measure, after missing two appointments.

Jeff then prepared a quote that was twice the cost of his first quote. This quote included a 10% “discount” which Jeff indicated was a marketing/goodwill effort – if they did a job here, perhaps it would lead to other jobs.

In part, Jeff’s email stated, “Note that Action has never failed an inspection, we show up on time and we take pride in our craftsmanship. We believe that your project is an example of a perfect showcase for our product and service. There is no greener and more efficient method of insulating, most prominently due to seasonal wind conditions in your area. We would really appreciate the job. Please let me know for scheduling.”

Jeff gave me contact info for 3 references. I followed up on these references, which were very positive. Some of the comments from these referees suggested that Action Spray Foam showed up when they promised, that they came back quickly when changes or incomplete work needed to be touched up (even taking 45 minutes to heat up the equipment for a job that lasted a few minutes), that they left the work site in very clean condition, and that the product was very effective in preventing heat loss, especially in high wind areas. Jeff also repeatedly mentioned how thorough the clean-up was, and how their jobs always passed inspections. I told him in an email:

“Your references check out beautifully. You’re hired! Please find out whether the ventilation in the roof above the insulation is required (vaulted spaces – we have metal roof.)”

We had several phone conversations about whether roof ventilation was required. Action asserted that none was required, and used a letter from their building envelope engineer to support this assertion. Eventually, I understand that Joe’s business partner, Jeremy, asked a building envelope engineer to make a site visit to confirm that no ventilation would be required. She provided her opinion at the site. This advice resulted in a full day’s labour by our framing crew of 3 people, at a cost of $800 to us, to insert plywood rafter ends at the soffits. Although the engineer was not retained by us, I agreed to pay the $600 billed for this site visit, after talking with Jeff while the crew was applying the foam. We would have to get an engineer’s inspection anyway for the Regional District.

The engineer observed the work that had been done already by the two crews. She said that the work was very good, and took several measurements. She and her associate poked holes into the foam in hundreds of spots (I wondered if those spot holes then allowed air leaks? They were never filled.)

Action’s two crews completed part of our job, then left to work on other jobs in the Vancouver area. They returned 3 days later than Jeremy promised. They “finished” their work here, and left in a hurry to catch a ferry. They took away approximately 9 large bags of foam popcorn and sawcut trimmings, plus 2 of our other styrofoam block-filled garbage bags. Although they cleaned up 2 outdoor vents that got a lot of spray on them, they did not do a thorough job of cleaning. Our metal roof, electrical boxes, pipes, and exterior walls have several areas with foam on them. Nor did they trim off anywhere near all the areas that required cleaning up.

We and our building crew ended up putting in 6 man-days of cutting/cleaning up the spray foam work for the drywallers and to pass the insulation inspection. The engineer would not provide the B1B2s to pass the inspection until we completed all the window and multiple stud and plate moisture barriers and insulation (“rod and caulk”). According to our SCRD inspector, some spray foam crews cover the whole wall/ceiling/windows with moisture barrier BEFORE spraying, then trim between the studs/rafters and seal it with the spray foam. That would have saved us a huge amount of effort and mess, plus protecting the windows from the foam and dust. Although Jeff boasted that Action’s jobs always pass inspections, we had to go over the whole house to fill holes and seal windows that most insulation businesses complete as part of their insulation jobs. Subsequent cutting off of the foam produced 6 more large garbage bags of foam, and required several cleaning sessions by me and by our crew, and even the drywallers.

When the engineer did a second site visit and eventually passed the insulation and provided the B1B2s, we were billed the second site visit. Engineers from the Sunshine Coast area engineers  provide this service for about 1/2 the cost, because they don’t have to take 4 hours of travel time.

I feel we have not been well-served by Action Spray Foam. We were misled about the level of completion, the engineer’s inspection, and the cleanup.

I should have insisted on a clear and detailed quotation, rather than the simple listing of measurements and price. The best quotations indicate exactly what is provided. If they claim to provide a service that is inspection-ready, then they need to specify exactly what the standard of completion is.

According to the Action crews that were on site, Action’s salesperson seriously underestimated on their quote. Although the crews were unfailingly polite to me, it was clear that they were angry about the situation and in a hurry to get the job done. It was much bigger than they had been told, even though the quote included quite accurate measurements. They got sloppy and just left before the cleanup was completed.

In between talking to subtrades and the regional district and shopping for  building materials, I usually just spend all my time on site painting, cleaning, painting, cleaning, making trips to the recycle depot, and more cleaning. Today, a break in the routine: Aaron and I installed Roxul “Safe and Sound” insulation (sound barrier and fire-proof, made of rock (??!)) between the main floor and the basement. It’s a messy damn job. This investment of about $500 will give us or guests or our nanny in old age peace and quiet. Our last home had this insulation between the two floors, and it was very quiet both upstairs and down.

I thought the spray foam applicators would be spraying into all the nooks and crannies. Apparently, they don’t spray  between the window frames and the rough openings, because, I presume, the foam is likely to cause such a rigid fill that the windows could not be adjusted, or the foam would cause distortion in the wood frame.

In any event, the consulting engineer told us that the ganged up studs need to be caulked to prevent air leaks, and then covered with tuck tape or heavy plastic vapour barrier.

Preventing air leaks with caulking and vapour barrier (the shiny parts)

In addition, the space between the frame and rough opening need to be stuffed with traditional batting to prevent drafts. All potential leaks should be caulked.

Stuffing batting around window frames. White caulking between studs.

D and I started the process, using 8 regular batts to stuff just 11 windows, and 6 tubes of caulking. It took us most of the day. There are 32 windows! Yikes! We need more hours in the day.

Update next day: Unfortunately, the engineer and the building inspector rejected our window sealing. We must have misunderstood the earlier instructions from the engineer.

We now must push the 10 batts-worth of batting space-filler in further, then insert a 5/8″ “rod” of foam (540 feet total), then caulk both sides of the foam. Obviously, we should have just done this in the first place. Forget the tuck tape.