Post & Pier: Deciding How High

[Ryan.]

We're just starting the process of having our new home drafted. The draftsman would like to know how high we want the house (post & pier). What's your preference?

Initially, we thought we'd like it 8 ft for carport use and potentially to extend the house downward, adding bedrooms in the future. However, we soon learned that the draftsman wanted double the price for this, the builder wanted extra, and the county taxes any area under P&P taller than 6 ft (considered accessory space valued at $50 per sq. ft.). All this for space that we may or may not ever use.

So were considering something lower. Ideally, we'd like it at a height that looks nice and where there's enough room to access things underneath (plumbing, etc.). Also, it'd be great if it was high enough to get good ventilation and keep free from mold.

Any insights? What would you do if you were building a new post & pier? I didn't find anything in the archives on this matter, so I thought I'd ask it here.

[Rob Tucker]

I have a client with the same concerns. What was decided was to have the posts 5' high and the client decided also the have the foundation poured 16" high on grade. The net result will be a clear space of 6'-4" under the house.

The draftsman shouldn't be concerned with this, either should the contractor except that the taller posts, stairs (and perhaps concrete) will cost more. Our plan passed the county fine.

[StillHope]

If you don't want to pay for the extra sq ft anything useful as a storage is going to look "post& peer-rish".So makes sense to use just under 6 ft(check with the building dep the exact numbers).Plenty of storage and you might be able to drive the average car under(not those raped trucks).
Take into consideration climbing the stairs when you are older or having temp. back problems.

___________________________
Whatever you assume,please
just ask a question first.

[TrevorKane]

Ditto SH's concern about climbing stairs. The county tax issue makes me feel like 5'6" would be the ideal height, short enough to ensure no argument while being high as possible.

Ignoring "the man," I came to 4' as my ideal post height - high enough to get under easily and store "stuff" without having to climb too many stairs, carry groceries up too many stairs, have stairs so long that they might need their own roof or be exposed to the rain, etc. etc.

I love being up in the air - better breeze, further from the centipedes, harder for people to enter through open windows, and the storage/utility space is awesome compared to slab-on-grade.

My first house just had a 2' crawl space, that was a nasty experience - very dry and clean (except that you were belly-crawling on dirt), and very practical to inspect for problems / make repairs, but there was an 8 year stretch where I just "didn't go there" because it was such an experience to squeeze into "the hole".

[ericlp]

Don't forget about earthquakes ... The higher you go the more fun they are. But I second hauling 5 gallon water bottles up 12' of stairs and food and what not. 3-4' should be a good number to go with I'd say.

[Bullwinkle]

I second the higher is beter - higher windows seem to let in more breeze - provide better security

leaving enough room - 9 feet or so... to enclose the bottom half later on may also be an option - I will look at that opton long and hard before my next build

[Rob Tucker]

In an economic sense I have mostly felt that if you are raising a building five feet you may as well raise it eight. Twice the square footage for the roof area. It should result in a higher appraised value for the home but if cash is tight and you don't need a full understory.... then don't.

[robguz]

I did 10' and wished I had done 12-14' although that's primarily for the view. Never thought I'd build underneath the house and sure enough 3 years later I'm enclosing half of it. If I'd gone higher the addition could at least have high ceilings which I love in my house.

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robguz

I did 10' and wished I had done 12-14' although that's primarily for the view. Never thought I'd build underneath the house and sure enough 3 years later I'm enclosing half of it. If I'd gone higher the addition could at least have high ceilings which I love in my house.

---

Exactly. As for the draftsperson - designing over a certain height does require more infrastructure than designing for short heights.

To not have excessive deflection or sway ('specially during an earthquake!) I think you need to have a little larger shear walls, and bigger beaming underneath when you go up 10-12-14 ft. But thats me.

You can always do it cheap and less if your draftsperson/architect okays.

Since this has been an on-going discussion here and with builders and owners I know personally, my feeling is if I am spending that much money to begin with whats a little more to make it feel substantial and not cheap or "wiggly" (<<< my official construction term! haha)

There is code, and there is comfort, and there is budgets.

But truly the higher you go the more that everything that follows is more expensive.

[Bullwinkle]

I used to call the concept "moment arm" the length of the member times the force = moment arm = deflection