The wish list for stairs

[DougM]

It's funny how some can ask for things they want while in the same breath despute what others would like or want.

[Allen42acj]

Gene
We need it for to check head room clearance.
Right now the top of the stairs are what they should be in real life.
Bottom is 3/4" higher than real life.
The bottom is where it counts most of the time.

It makes a different on cross sections to.

[Gene Davis]

Doug, for someone doing design/build, as you do, having the tools available in Chief to detail and model the exact staircase and balustrade you will build, is certainly a valid wish. You simply want a photorealistic preview of what you will build, and the ability to specify it all out in 2D on drawings.

Chief doesn't do that now because of many things. First and foremost among them is that it calculates rise from rough to rough, something which any stairbuilder worth his stair gauges does not do. I suspect that most of the calls for the ability to input rise, rather than have Chief compute it, come from that.

Out of curiosity, I went and asked in three different web forums that stairbuilders might peruse, what they want and need the plans to show. Most all said all they want was the general spatial specs, i.e., where it is to start, where it ends, its widths, maybe some walkline info if it is a twisty, and little more. They did not want rise. They wanted the overall space to be designed so the stairs that get built into the volume meets code, and doesn't have design problems.

One said, and how true this is, that since a staircase is such a big thing in a house, it should be thought out first, with the house built around it. Considering all the bad stuff I've seen with stairway access, lousy spatial arrangement, resulting in lousy trim workouts, and more, that sounds like good advice. But that does not relate to the things about Chief we are discussing here.

By and large, though, the various contributors said they did not want details. They only wanted, really, the space defined, and then said they would take it from there. Two of these were extremely talented builders of curved staircases, the kind going into houses costing $5MM and up.

In the three identical threads I began on three different forums, only one guy said that he wanted all possible details given, and if they were not shown, the consequence would be that the client would get the staircase that he, the builder, would do, rather than what the architect or designer wanted.

He was not talking at all about rise or run, but was referring to the details of balustrade and trim, the newels, scotia molding, etc. As it turns out, this is a guy that works on a lot of architect-designed jobs, for which those details are often whimsical, totally custom, and in which manufactured stair parts are rarely used.

Four houses I built were from plans done by architects, and in all those, the plans detailed exactly what was to be done, for trim, finish, and balustrade, but as to spatial arrangements, the 2D plans and sections pretty much showed what Chief shows us now with present tools.

I built houses from "stock" plans, and those plans showed even less, with no details for finish, trim, and balustrade given at all.

In my neighborhood, the land of "Adirondack Great Camp" -styled summer homes, where rustic design rules and codes do not get in anyone's way, the staircase you get is the one executed by the log-builder craftsmen building it, and never is it designed or detailed by the architect or designer. The plans only show the spatial arrangement, and no details are given. Some of the architects are pretty artistic, and may show fancy things on their hand-drawn sheets, but what gets executed, is almost always different in various ways.

I have a feeling, just a feeling, that the great majority of staircases that get built each year, whether in new construction or in remodeling, get done with the plans being pretty much what the staircase builders want, and that means they are basic, simple, with few details.

There was a statistic I once saw, I cannot remember when, but it was about how few new homes in America get built from plans actually done by trained architects. The factor was well under 5 percent, if I recall correctly.

Attached here are some pics clipped from the portfolios at a few different architect websites, and I am certain all of what you see was detailed out on plans, and executed on site under "full service" agreements with the archy's on-site visits made to ensure built details match those designed.

These kinds of details, I'll bet, end up on less that one percent of staircases built.

The thing about head clearance, noted by Allen, and I think referred to by you, could be solved by Chief by allowing manual tweaking of stairs, after the auto-build we get now. By inputting floor finish thicknesses at start and finish, and then recalculating rise, Chief could correctly show stairs in section view, and then CAD lines for finishes at floor, ceiling, and ceiling openings, plus the snap for across-nosings line and the 6/8 rise, can tell us whether we have clearance OK. Whenever things get that tight, I rely on 2D CAD for the workout, anyway. Most often, though, it just ain't that tight.

Here is something worth noting, maybe. Wendy Welton, a frequent poster on this forum, and a trained and licensed architect, does a lot of custom plans for clients, and has a business doing and selling "stock" plans to mostly builders and developers. One of her "customs" is posted, in all its pages, as a sample on Chief's main site. "Oak Bungalow" is its title, I think. Check it out.

No details given, period. The 6/8 code check head clear thing is shown, though, and clearance is plenty. The fact that she shows that on a section, and that Allen (who does some of her drafting), is probably the reason Allen wants Chief to do better in section, as relates to rise/run control, the 80-inch snap, etc.

But still, no details. That seems to satisfy just about everyone.

Except for you and the full service archys!

[DougM]

Chief doesn't do that now because of many things. First and foremost among them is that it calculates rise from rough to rough, something which any stairbuilder worth his stair gauges does not do. I suspect that most of the calls for the ability to input rise, rather than have Chief compute it, come from that.
“Gene, your right, it should be finished to finish: keep in mind though when both finishes are the same it doesn’t matter. Rough to rough is the same as finish to finish. Not the issue here.”
Out of curiosity, I went and asked in three different web forums that stairbuilders might peruse, what they want and need the plans to show. Most all said all they want was the general spatial specs, i.e., where it is to start, where it ends, its widths, maybe some walkline info if it is a twisty, and little more. They did not want rise. They wanted the overall space to be designed so the stairs that get built into the volume meets code, and doesn't have design problems. “Your right again: Not the issue here.”

One said, and how true this is, that since a staircase is such a big thing in a house, it should be thought out first, with the house built around it. Considering all the bad stuff I've seen with stairway access, that sounds like good advice. But that does not relate to the things about Chief we are discussing here. “Your right again, Not the issue here”
By and large, though, the various contributors said they did not want details. They only wanted, really, the space defined, and then said they would take it from there. Two of these were extremely talented builders of curved staircases, the kind going into houses costing $5MM and up. “Not the issue”
In the three identical threads I began on three different forums, only one guy said that he wanted all possible details given, and if they were not shown, the consequence would be that the client would get the staircase that he, the builder, would do, rather than what the architect or designer wanted. “Not the issue”
He was not talking at all about rise or run, but was referring to the details of balustrade and trim, the newels, scotia molding, etc. As it turns out, this is a guy that works on a lot of architect-designed jobs, for which those details are often whimsical, totally custom, and in which manufactured stair parts are rarely used.
“Absolutly true, But not the issue”

Four houses I built were from plans done by architects, and in all those, the plans detailed exactly what was to be done, for trim, finish, and balustrade, but as to spatial arrangements, the 2D plans and sections pretty much showed what Chief shows us now with present tools. “I agree 100%, again not the issue”
I built houses from "stock" plans, and those plans showed even less, with no details for finish, trim, and balustrade given at all. “As I do also, But not the issue”

Here, in the land of "Adirondack Great Camp" -styled summer homes, where rustic design rules and codes do not get in anyone's way, the staircase you get is the one executed by the log-builder craftsmen building it, and never is it designed or detailed by the architect or designer. The plans only show the spatial arrangement, and no details are given. Some of the architects are pretty artistic, and may show fancy things on their hand-drawn sheets, but what gets executed, is almost always different in various ways.
“I agree 100%, again not the issue”

I have a feeling, just a feeling, that the great majority of staircases that get built each year, whether in new construction or in remodeling, get done with the plans being pretty much what the staircase builders want, and that means they are basic, simple, with few details. “I agree 100%, again not the issue”

There was a statistic I once saw, I cannot remember when, but it was about how few new homes in America get built from plans actually done by trained architects. The factor was well under 5 percent, if I recall correctly. “No offence to the Architect members, but what I see going up in my area designed by Architects, They should have their licenses pulled. Still not the issue”
Attached here are some pics clipped from the portfolios at a few different architect websites, and I am certain all of what you see was detailed out on plans, and executed on site under "full service" agreements with the archy's on-site visits made to ensure built details match those designed. “And thats great, Not the issue”
These kinds of details, I'll bet, end up on less that one percent of staircases built.
“I wouldn’t take the bet, even plans I do for my own jobs never get opened or much is changed as things move along, Most of the time the plans are on the job cause it’s required. “Not the issue”
The thing about head clearance, noted by Allen, and I think referred to by you, could be solved by Chief by allowing manual tweaking of stairs, after the auto-build we get now. By inputting floor finish thicknesses at start and finish, and then recalculating rise, Chief could correctly show stairs in section view, and then CAD lines for finishes at floor, ceiling, and ceiling openings, plus the snap for across-nosings line and the 6/8 rise, can tell us whether we have clearance OK. Whenever things get that tight, I rely on 2D CAD for the workout, anyway. Most often, though, it just ain't that tight.
“Your right again, Not the issue”
Here is something worth noting, maybe. Wendy Welton, a frequent poster on this forum, does a lot of custom plans for clients, and has a business doing and selling "stock" plans to mostly builders and developers. One of her "customs" is posted, in all its pages, as a sample on Chief's main site. "Oak Bungalow" is its title, I think. Check it out.

No details given, period. The 6/8 code check head clear thing is shown, though, and clearance is plenty. The fact that she shows that on a section, and that Allen (who does some of her drafting), is probably the reason Allen wants Chief to do better in section, as relates to rise/run control, the 80-inch snap, etc.
“Terrific, not the issue”

But still, no details. That seems to satisfy just about everyone.

Except for you and the full service archys!

“Ok, first of all I’m not trying to get into a Pi$%$%ing contest here, the point I was trying to make was, it’s quite obvious that with all the posts about stairs in Q&A, there must be something wrong or lacking. Many of the posts regarding stair issues be it lack of, unable to do, flat out can’t do, lack of control over certain aspects, not being able to match step railing to deck railing, etc,etc,etc,etc. Aside from members posting help issues, many of them are due to the fact that the stair tool needs help. And a lot of it. And far be it from me to stand in the way of improvement even if I will or won’t make use of the improvement, someone may find the improvement useful. Because you or I don’t, doesn’t mean someone won’t. My big peeve is, I see so many posts requesting things that can only improve the tools with that we use, and low and behold there is usually someone knocking it down because they don’t need it or won’t ever use it. Well someone out there may, so lets live with whatever improvements we can get. It certainly can’t hurt. It’s just beyond me and I just can’t understand why anyone would stand in the way of moving forward. Like building Green, is it the way of the future?, probably, will every builder/contractor utilize it, dought it, but it will be “used” by some. (I’m sure I could have come up with a better for instance.) I think it makes my point.
Per my signature, “Good isn’t enough… where better is possible”Have a great day, may the rains stop……JJ

[George A Jones]

While we are talking, can we have a single board riser, they look like what they are "Flooring", okay for landings but not treads.
Thanks
George

[Allen42acj]

I would like to gab the stairs at the top or bottom and move them rather than adjust how many treads there are.
Hopefully someone will say there is an alternative behaver to do that now..

[Sledge]

I'd like to be able to place a wall under the stairs without having to "sneak"" it into position so the stairs don't have a cardiac arrest.

Perhaps when selecting closed stairs, it actually closes the stairs completely (or an option to do so) and matches the room moldings of the room it adjoins or is part of, also that I can place a door into the stairs instead of placing a wall to do the same thing.

Yes I know there are workarounds, there always will be, that is not the purpose of this discussion, we are talking of improvements to the tool.

[Dermot Dempsey]

"I would like to gab the stairs at the top or bottom and move them rather than adjust how many treads there are."

Try using the middle mouse button.

This is a feature that I'm sure a lot of people don't know about. Most objects allow you to drag a corner or side handle using the middle mouse button rather then the left mouse button and you can move the object rather then resize it. This can be very usefull for moving an object and using the snaps to make sure the corners or sides are aligned where you want them. In some cases, it is easier and more powerful then the point to point move tool.

[perryh]

Here in Calif all the cities want details of the stairs, stringer connections, railing connections, engineered to code. Can't get a permit without these details. More accuracy would help us a lot. I have pre-drawn details I use all the time, but some custom stairs need new details. You guys all over the country, if they don't require stair details now , they will, under the new codes.

[jonathank]

Try using the middle mouse button.

Alright...that definitely needs to go in to the "Dept. of Sneaky Tricks".

That's a good one Dermot, thanks for that.

[Allen42acj]

The only problem with the middle button is it move freely side to side.
Any way to just get 90 degree ?

[Thane Pearson]

I would like to be able to build a stair, adjust the rise /run to meet my requirements (I can do math myself thanks ) lock the stair and move it into place and have it stay. It would be an added bonus to be able to adjust the first or last riser to accommodate finish flooring. A cross section will show me what i need for head room. I don't need chief to do that, in fact I don't want chief to make an auto change because it thinks I need it.

[SC8PER]

Will a user defined riser be part of X3....having an issue as others have describe of not being able to get a set of stairs for an as built for a remodel of a early 1950's home. Chief will not let me create a set of stairs that are not to today's code, however they are part of the existing home. We need this control to allow for an accurate model of the existing. Not all renovations will require a "new" set of stairs...so please gives us who work in the as built world the power over chief to adjust stairs to pre code in the field as built dimensions.....please...

[DougM]

I've been saying this since 9, apparently on deaf ears,

[WendyWelton]

Do we really need to have tools so as to exactly model a staircase in an 1871 farmhouse that got cobbed together by some woodwrights used to building barns? One with not-to-code steepness, unequal rises, out-of-level treads, and more?

Yes. Here in New England, and any other area that was substantially built out years ago, more than half our work is addition and renovation.

To be able to match every riser exactly (8", then 8 1/4", then 7 7/8"...) I think the programming effort would be ridiculously out of scale with the benefit. Ditto with out-of-level treads.

However, yes, we should be able to do non-code rise/run. I regularly run into houses where the tread is 7" and the riser is 11". Telling the client to use their imagination kinda stinks.

Also high on my list (most already mentioned by others):

1 - Control over top and bottom height to accommodate flooring thickness.

2 - Framed landings, correct framng in general.

3 - Ability to do truly smooth railings when we add a tread depth to a landing for the express purpose of achieving a smooth railing. This is a design feature in most high end homes, and the results right now are laughable.

4 - The control over the railings everybody else has mentioned - raised shoes, varying baluster count per tread, etc.

5 - Separate specs for the Newel at the bottom, instead of having giant tall newels at landings when we have to make the newel at the bottom taller.

6 - Ability to offset newels, like we can on porches.

In my perfect world, stairs are more like dormers. They come in one piece, then you can "explode" then and fix anything Chief did that doesn't match what you want. Need to funk up the railing? Chief gets you started, then funk away.