I'm in the process of building a house and have received conflicting advice on insulating the attic. The architect specified "Sealection" foam insulation against/under the roof with a conditioned attic. However, the builder decided to ignore this specification since that's method is not what they normally do! They've already drilled ventilation holes and screened them all around the roof soffits. Now they are advising against going with the conditioned attic because of possible problems with warm humid air in the summer (we're a cold climate for the other 9 months of the year). The builder's explanation doesn't quite make sense to me and naturally the foam salesmen says it won't be a problem. However, I remain concerned over making the best choice. Foam under the roof and conditioned attic or cellulose blow in above the ceiling and vented attic. Any comments would be appreciated.:)

It sounds like you have both contractual problems, as well as a decision to make.

THis is a 'traditional' vs 'new' argument. I had not heard of a conditioned attic before - there is a bit of info if you Google it. Your poor contractor has probably never heard of it either, so is just building the standard roof (although I'm surprised he's using blown in cellulose fibre).

The real question is: what do you want? I can't help you with that - anyone else had experience with a conditioned attic? I think you should go back to your architect and ask for facts and figures about why he specified the conditioned attic. Hopefully he did it because it would save you money rather than just specifying the latest and greatest. Between he and your foam salesman, you should be able to make a much better decision on whether you want the conditioned attic or not. You will have to give a lot of this information to your contractor because he obviously has not built them this way before.

The contractual problem is that your contractor appears to have insulated the traditional way. You should go back to the drawings and your contract with him and see what it says - if it specifies a conditioned attic with no substitutes, then you should be able to ask the contractor to redo the attic (if you want the conditioned attic). If it specifies a house built to code that has a floor design and outside look like the one in the drawings, then you may have more difficulty getting the contractor to change.

What does your Architect have to say about this? Contractors only like building systems which they are used to and comfortable with, something new scares them. If the system the Contractor is suggesting is used, you should receive a credit back from him as he is not following the drawings that he bid. The system he is suggesting is cheaper to build.

Can you contact the person who built the other house that the Contractor ignored the Architect on and see how their roof is performing for them.

Architects design buildings and sometimes what is on their drawing can't be built. Your contract should have brought this topic up at bidding time and not made this decision without consulting you. Both posters are telling you accurate info so I'd give amricca a greenie too since he brings forth new suggestions.

Ballenger has a good point, what your Architect designed may be overkill and unnecessary. It sounds like it may be too late to go back to it now seeing as your Contractor already vented it. If the house design was planning on this type of construction you should definitely ask your Architect what the change affects. From what I undersatnd the HVAC equipment and ductwork often goes in the attic space with this type of roof. Changing it may affect that system as it is designed.

I understand that you want what's best and I'd have to say the architect probably has a more energy efficient design but isn't it too late by now with the work your contractor did without your approval? You could always force him to go back to the bid specs and correct anything he did outside the specs, that's your legal right.