BUILDING BASE STRUCTURES—WHAT IF YOU HAD TO START OVER?
That “more is better” trap is so easy to fall into, especially when you’re aiming for longevity and peace of mind. I’ve been guilty of overengineering, only to realize later that the real issue was poor site drainage, not the foundation specs. If I could do it again, I’d spend more time just watching the land after a heavy rain. Data is great, but there’s no substitute for seeing how water actually moves across the site. Sometimes the best investment is patience, not concrete.
Sometimes the best investment is patience, not concrete.
Couldn’t agree more with this. I’ve seen folks pour thousands into beefy footings and piers, only to end up with a soggy crawlspace because they ignored the lay of the land. If I had to start over, I’d do a step-by-step: walk the site after storms, flag low spots, and sketch out where water pools. Then, before breaking ground, I’d rough in swales or French drains. It’s wild how much easier it is to tweak drainage before there’s a slab in the way. Sometimes less is more—if you get the basics right.
Title: Building Base Structures—What If You Had To Start Over?
Couldn’t have said it better about patience being the best investment. I’ve watched people get so caught up in specs and materials that they forget how much the terrain shapes everything that comes after. You can build the strongest foundation in the world, but if you haven’t paid attention to water flow or soil movement, you’re just setting yourself up for headaches down the road.
Your point about walking the site after a storm is spot-on. Sometimes it’s tempting to rush into construction because everyone’s eager to see progress, but those early site visits tell you more than any blueprint can. I’ve worked on projects where a little extra time spent mapping out drainage meant we never had to deal with musty basements or warped flooring later.
I do think there’s a balance, though. Some folks get so cautious that they overcomplicate things—digging elaborate trenches or adding layers of waterproofing that just aren’t needed for their climate or soil type. It’s easy to fall into a “more is better” mindset, especially when you’re worried about making mistakes. But as you said, less really can be more if you’re strategic from the start.
Funny enough, I’ve had clients who wanted to jump straight into picking tile colors before we’d even finalized the floor plan. It’s all connected; if you don’t get the basics right—site prep, drainage, orientation—the rest is just window dressing.
Anyway, really appreciate your perspective here. It’s refreshing to see someone advocate for slowing down and observing before acting. In my experience, taking that time upfront pays off in ways people don’t always see until years later... when their floors are still level and their crawlspaces are dry.
if you don’t get the basics right—site prep, drainage, orientation—the rest is just window dressing.
That really hits home for me. When we started our build, I was all about the floor plan and kitchen layout, but after a heavy rain turned half our lot into a pond, priorities shifted fast. I’m curious—if you had to do it over, would you invest in soil testing up front? We skipped it and ended up with some unexpected settling. Wondering if that’s something most people regret not doing or if it’s overkill for certain areas.
If I had to do it again, I'd absolutely budget for soil testing. It's not just for "problem" areas—unexpected settling can happen almost anywhere. A few hundred bucks up front would've saved me a lot of headaches (and repairs) down the line.
