Jerome, when your walls are 2x6 stud frame or on an classic 8" x 8" x 16" reinforced CMU stem wall or 8" reinforced concrete stem wall, a 12" wide continuous footing by about 8" thick is what I would go with. Too wide and you can have a problem... Heard of punch through? This all depends.

I size footings based on engineering standards and principles not just prescriptive code. There is nothing indicated to claim I am an engineer or offering "engineering services" but pertain structural design, calculations and specifications as necessary to assure design meets standards.

Yeah but frankly put, just because a building is exempt doesn't mean I am exempt from negligence or tort. I perform the calculation in accordance with the standards that applies to you, engineers which in accordance with case laws and to extent statutory laws also applies to me because I don't get out of liability just because I am not licensed. 

It doesn't work that way in Oregon.

As for books, just about everything from the Frank Kidder Architect and Builder's Pocketbook / Handbook to newer books, the building codes, etc. are all useful knowledge. The engineering equation back then are still used today in books like the Parker-Ambrose Simplied Engineering for Architect book. The thing is, you can use that knowledge but not on its own. You have to connect it with current building codes, and other resources. It is all part of a larger body of knowledge resource.

http://miltonstricker.com/

For sake of design thinking. Here is one source. Since Suri mentioned FLW as a source of inspiration then this is something worth it to look to for great information on this.

There are other sources which I will hold off mentioning so others can chime in on.

Ugh! His plans?

Just read only the first third of the first page.... I hope not. 

suri, 

In regards to that other thread:

First and foremost to say in regard to that diatribe, the thing with classic or traditional homes like the classic 'plan book' kit homes and those custom designed and built in those times is that it costs a lot of money because the common denominator of construction skills of todays builders are glorified rough framers. In those days, the majority of contractors had finish carpentry, millwork shops, etc. and had the equipment and crew capable of milling fine wood work. 

The average builder doesn't have the equipment or the skills to do it. They just don't. As design professionals, we stop designing projects that requires advance craftsmanship and trade skills unless we are designing for a client that has the money. If you are Donald Trump or a movie star with millions of dollars, or have a lot of money then we would design it and the craftsmen with that kind of skills would be hired.

I am fortunate to be in a place where there are those craftspeople with those skills because they are involved in historic preservation and restoration type projects. They also cost more in labor cost to hire than the cheap hammer wacker.

This is reality due to a supply & demand. It is a specialty skill today and you pay specialist prices. The thing is, most people want McMansion size homes and they have this idea they can have a 10,000 sq.ft. house built with luxury amenities, craftsmanship and pay only $250K which would barely build a 1500 sq.ft. bland siding, suburban ranch style house. Sorry, you can't build a 10,000 sq.ft. arts & crafts house for that kind of money. 

Hell man, try finding a stone mason. I would likely have to do the stone work myself with the Star Diamond Industry lapidary rock cutter. Even then, it can only be a facing masonry backed by reinforced concrete because of seismic code where I am as we can't used unreinforced masonry in Seismic Zone D/D1/D2 zone(s). 

I can find a brick mason to assist but rock cutting, I have the equipment for it. Again, lets be realistic. we are talking about a limited number of people that has the equipment and ability to do it in terms of knowledge and skills. Only thing is my rock cutter isn't very fast.

That's the main issue I have. The rocks would already have to be within a certain size so it can be cut through and managed.

I would only entertain doing such under the right circumstances and for the right amount of money, logistical means to do so and time.

I agree. When reading through that OTHER thread. Fact it and backed by actual research on the subject matter, the average income people didn't build or had it built any of these 'painted ladies' and those good example of historic buildings we have today and mostly preserved. They were built by early predecessor forms of builder-developers and well to do people that were well established. Most modest income folks or their first home built were rather vernacular and plain. Basically plank boxes with a simple gable. 

The construction method used varied but one method of fairly common use at a time was vertical plank frame construction and its variants known as 'box frame construction'. 

https://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/PlankedFrameHouse.pdf

http://www.4culture.org/2014/02/preservation-special-projects-krafft-on-vertical-plank-construction/

I've actually participated in documenting and reconstructing one of these types of buildings that used a variant of that type of construction. 

In this day and age, we can't build them exactly in that way and pass the codes. I could do a variant that is double-walled with insulation in-between. The method in that case, wouldn't be that bad and not a far stretch from basically what you get with SIPs walls. The issue is it might actually cost more to construct than a stud frame wall or SIPs walls.

A single wall system potentially could be cheaper but it would have very little insulation value and possibly other issues when built for regular human occupancy.

Bottom line: Many of these vernacular/modest structures gave way for newer structures over time. Those who couldn't afford to build a home either bought an older home of the day (if there was any) or they rented an apartment or in those times a room in those BOARDING HOUSES. Sometimes, they rented basically a space in the loft of those houses where there was basically a bunk bed and dresser. It wasn't fancy living but that is what it was. As soon as one was able, office spaces were rented. 

These are example points and not explicitly the same everywhere. 

People also did however work hard to elevate their social status during their lives. I think today, people are so much more straddled with debt inhibiting their ability to go up the social status because they have things like student loans as an anchor to their ability to take steps in elevating themselves. Degrees can be great if rewarded for the effort from the get go. In some fields, it may hinder moving up in the social economic status in that it takes substantially longer to get there.

When it comes to craftsmanship, the standardized products and components and copy & paste nature simply makes the need or desire for real crafts skill less and less.

I may challenge the norm by shaking up the conventional by employing some less conventional methods with a composite of other methods. I think it is worth it to challenge the norm.

brains are just brains. Unless someone has brain injury or something during the birth process or throughout life, each person's brain has the same general potential at anything. However, not every person has taken upon themselves to take an equal devotion to develop their mind and skill set resulting in variation of knowledge, creativity and learning style for a variety of reasons.

jla-x,

You have a different body of knowledge as you grew up. Remember, you start learning the day to take your first breath.

No one's life experience is the same at just about any time in their life. They learned things that made it more conducive to learn the subject matter. In addition, who taught them this and that in life. There is so many integral aspects you may not even be aware of. 

kjdt,

We are talking about human brains. We are only one species/race. It isn't like we are comparing humans to dogs.

I was studying this before community college with regards to artificial intelligence design.

Unless one have a birth defect or something along that sort resulting in the damage of the brain, everyone is going to start life with an equal potential towards anything because they start with a clean slate.

Not unless you believe in some sort of metaphysical, supernatural and reincarnation but then the science community doesn't believe in that sort of stuff.... typically. 

You don't start life as a design professional. The brain isn't static, either. It evolves as people use their brain to how it is used. The brain is like a complex compound muscle. How the brain is utilize will effect how certain parts are strengthen or developed. 

kjdt,

Since everyone's first 9 months of existence is largely the same with exceptions to what their mother does in terms while pregnant. As I said, aside from birth defects, everyone's brains are functioning with the same basic activity. We start life from inception if you follow biology of life.

As for genetics, none of the genetic code the controls the cellular structure of the brain changes on mere genetics of the family without severe implications of drugs or other chemicals in the mother's system or extreme doses of radiation which actually alters RNA not DNA. Then again, for there to be any appreciable genetic biases the brains predisposition for any particular aptitude, we would have to be in both world-wide nuclear war with all our world's nuclear arsenal deployed and our world-wide chemical war. It has to be that f---ed up of a world we are in for us to have our brains genetically altered that much. 

If you haven't noticed, all studies done are studies of adults not freshly newborn. If I recall, it would be a criminal offense to do such research of the brain structure of a new born child. 

When someone is born, they are not predispositioned to anything. Genetic markers are assumptions not facts. It is still theory because one is trying to make association of things that may not really be there because no research of a new born child's brain structure maybe performed.  Even if there was, it is limited sampling and usually the samples are of those that represent serious mutations. 

When it comes to determining architects types, I will bet you Bill Gates' fortune that each of us is coming from different backgrounds and our brains by the time we are 30 years old do not share the same pre-disposition at birth then we are at 30 years old unless we life a very narrow path in our life from the time we were an embryo to the time we are 30 years old. Where we get our advantages isn't in biology or the brain at the time we were born. If we trained every child from the day of inception to be architects then every child will have essentially the same brain structure because we all learn to use our brain the same. How effective is how effectively the same is our teachers. Since we don't grow up in life the same, we develop our ways of thinking, thinking and researching skills in various ways. This isn't so much the issue of genetic but the development of our 'muscle' in our skull. We develop that by the way we live our lives, learn, etc. This varies because we don't have the same parents, same teachers, same peers, etc. in our lives. 

By the time you reach 18 years of age, you already have so many wildly different lives and cultures. The brain is genetically the same. The crucial part of what we need to learn in our lives, human knowledge and experience is part of the human memory architecture. This is one crucial thing that is part of artificial intelligence studies. 

In this case, we are talking about the neural network and associative memory. Our memory structure is about connecting patterns because we are all predisposed in the human world to look for patterns. Especially, everyone of us with eye sight but it is alot more than just visual patterns but patters and association that we pick up from our senses and throughout life, this becomes more and more complex.

Learning is a process of making associative connections. Forming patterns. For us in our fields, it is patterns that we focus a lot on. Hence, discussions like the 'pattern language'. 

It is the association structure that we learn, memorize, etc. When you make connections to what is already in the pre-existing matrix of associations that part of the neural network structure of the brain, it is this that can make it easier or harder to learn something. It isn't even really the subject of a field. 

It is more closer to the relationship of learning. I'm trying to paint a rather complex subject in as few words as possible... Okay. We all have instructors that we learned from easier or less as easy from. 

Students who learn about art early on in their life will certainly grasp the subject matter of visual patterns for example or color, or texture, form, spatial composition, etc. Those who haven't taken art in their grade school or very little of it will have more difficulty. This isn't because of 'genetic' so much. This is more about how a person grows up. Predisposition comes out of the learned 'matrix' of a person's life as recorded in the brain. Brain records life in those parts of the brain used to store (memory) knowledge, experiences, feelings in that complex associative patterns that forms that complex web of knowledge, experiences, memory, etc.

It isn't the computer, it is the database content and how that relational connections. Human memory is very similar to a relational database. As a sophisticated computer that records the senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell as well as emotions, etc. 

In architecture, some programs are biased in they pre-biased expectation that a person has had art classes in high school or middle school. If the student doesn't have that, they will have more difficulty then someone who already had learned the vocabulary and basic concepts of art that is used in the art side of architecture.

This isn't about genetic but life experience and memory that someone has. The way human brain works is that the knowledge and skills, used often will likely be recalled faster and there is a scientific foundation behind that at the neuron, axon, synapses level connection. Very strong emotions recorded can be very pronounced and deep and vastly integrated. First time you burn your finger, you learn very quickly and strongly remember not to do that again. 

If it was genetic then we would be operating a genetic cast system and assign people to particular directions from the day they were born but it doesn't work like that. If it was so genetic/hereditary then the child of a father and mother that were both genetically predispositioned for architecture and was natural prodigies from birth for architecture then the child should be. 

It doesn't work that way. What made the person comes out of something unique to the life of the person. You can teach anyone from the day they took their first breath architecture and they'll be very good at it if their life was cast to that one area of study but the problem is they would be sterile in that they would not have diversity of thought and thinking and what's important. They would more likely learn to copy what is not develop the ability to think new because they don't have the diversity in their life to think diversely.

Then exactly how many neurons did each newborn had. How many synapses which each synapses. How many connections and where with each neuron. 

Of each type of neuron cell, type of connections. How many exactly of each did each child have. If they don't got that then they don't know what the f--- they are talking about. If there is any genetic deviation then there would be in each area. 

Lets not forget life actually starts from inception on so there could be factors at play because a child technically hears and feels at these early stages of pre-"birth" life.

However, the point really is more about when you start life. However, I don't think they have anything conclusive let alone anything they are using to scan the brain that will give precise cellular level. 

They use the wrong tools for scanning the brain. Scanning brain activity with a broad macro level scanning tool isn't really saying squat. How about a scan of siblings. They both would have the same dna genetics. Same mother and father. Same family tree. Guess what, they can be totally different people in life. They start life with the same potential. Since in life, the way each of us use our brains throughout LIFE defines us and our potential and ability to do something. 

Since what they would need to do to get precise cellular level and sub-cellular analysis of the brain, it would involve killing the newborn with the current technology.

Even with fMRI scans of the brain of the person, it is only picking up on the neurotransmission. We don't quite know exactly what is going on. Is the newborn in the same emotional state? Is the newborn dreaming in their REM state when put into an unconscious state? What is going on exactly? What's the dream? Is the child having a nightmare? We don't know that. 

I bet they are using neuro-imaging but it doesn't precisely tell you everything. A lot is up to assumptions and interpretation. I know about the research out there. Guess what, same data and you'll get different scientific opinions and even then it is only an assumption.

Even science research at universities like architecture research at universities with these "schools of thought" are de facto 'religions' in their own right. You can bias your interpretation by biasing the students. It is just a sophisticated form of brainwashing. Aside from that aspect, individual researchers are going to be unique because they have unique experience.

We do not have the tools let alone the ability to scientifically study from neuroimaging from fmri scanning exactly how a person is let alone confer that genetics will define a persons actual potential at anything since the neuro-network of human brains are constantly changing every single day, every single experience. This is because with everything being experienced in life, there is dynamics going on. Even with newborns, they are fresh out of the vagina at the time of research in exactly the same place with exactly the same person. Every little element is shaping the memory experience and that being recorded in memory is going to be different for each person because there will be a different wiring of the neuron, synapses, etc. just all that slightly even with seeming same physical environment, same doctors and nurse in the same position, etc. 

Since life actually starts before birth, there could be memory already because of pre-birth hearing, feeling, etc. Seldom will any of the variation of normal relatively uneventful birthing process is going to amount to any real impact on how a person is going to perform.

Genetic predispositions if there are any  initially wired in the brain will have little effect on the grand scheme of things. You can't assume genetic birth of to architects is going to spawn an architect even if both parents have the same pre-disposition. That child may perform better or worse even with the same genetic so called 'advantages' because they live life differently and experiences in life, in school, etc. is going to be different. The child could end up in a very unartful environment. 

I personally think from real experience that parents, teachers, those in your life, and experiences in life will make the differences in what we do. This has documented scientific research that is well established from so many lenses of academic study that it isn't funny. Just because a few research teams prepare a report and from their relatively small sampling base, it is very unlikely that the research assumption is correct. 99.9% of the research thesis are likely to be loaded with fallacies that will be proven false or incorrect. 

Every single neuron and synapses connection can be re-structured and re-wired and the brain does rewire the neurons throughout life as we live life. What defines a person's ability to perform academic studies of any kind relates to knowledge and skills learned. Personality predisposition triggers does not mean squat aside from a sociological perspective of inter-personal relationships. Yet, the predispositions at birth may change because there is a lot more to human and how humans develop that varies. 

More students are effected by their teachers during their growing up that impacts more of the students learning skills development that will impact their ability to perform certain studies. 

If genetics really defines a brain and its potential like the claim you made, then why aren't we using genetics as a basis of what school and what degree students may take. We found out that genetics doesn't define a person's capability so much. You find that how our young is taught and what each student takes from each learning experience is effecting and defining them in who they will be. Genetics can not and does not define who the person is going to be.

It is like psychological profiling. You don't know what I am capable of or what I know or what I am capable of. Let alone can you predict my ability to succeed in architectural studies for example. You just don't know. Taking a few fMRI scans isn't going to predict that. There is a lot of research thesis that are loaded with jumping to conclusions. There maybe observation of an fMRI scan samplings and then jumping to conclusions when they see a pattern but the pattern may just be biases induced by the instruction foundation of the science which follows certain schools of thoughts. 

Frank Lloyd Wright made a point about architecture schools along this line. You tell a person something is fact enough times without exposing them to anything that may contradict their believe. This is exactly what terrorist camps do, systematically and deliberately. This is what happens in North Korea. This is what happens in a lot of places. Schools and the academic 'czars' are doing a more veiled form of it. 

However, getting back to point a bit, there is biases that are systemic in the academic / research environment. When you take a moment to think outside the institutional 'box' and look at things more critically, you can see where flaws are. Dig deeper and you'll find the flaws in the research and their methods. 

fMRI is a good tool but one can easily misinterpret what is going on with fMRI because we make so many assumptions right down to the parts of the brain and what they do. We might think that certain parts are exclusive to certain functions. Reality is more complicated and more nuanced than that. 

Look at nature and whether you paint a scenery, take a photo or even your own eyes, ears, nose, hands, all of that is still only an abstraction. Our science is an abstract.

We can make excuses of our genetics but guess what, a lazy student can come in all skin colors, ethnic backgrounds, etc. We can make excuses and blame our parents on basis of genetics but come on. If anyone has the will, they can achieve anything. Their life and their decisions impacts them. Sure, the world may have external influences but no one lives in the world with an equal opportunity because of the nature of civilization and the world. Our brain has all the facilities to achieve anything with exception to those with medical disabilities in the brain. If you don't, you and I have the same basic brain capability to find a solution. My life is different than you. I have other challenges in my life that you don't have. 

My challenges comes down to me having the willpower to surmount the challenges I have and achieve my goal. That is for me to do. However, with the exception of a small minority with severe brain malfunction, damage or otherwise that inhibits their thinking abilities, we all have the capabilities of achieving our goals. 

Most learning disabilities cases are in fact due to deficiency in learning certain learning skills because they were marginalized, ignored or otherwise and fallen through the cracks of academia. Resulting in not developing certain learning skills necessary for the field of studies they seek and find it more difficult than they thought.

curtkram,

You are right. It is not worth my time. Enjoy the evening.

Heh, yeah. It replaced its older sign. It had drawn a little bit of controversy but hey?