# How do I measure the square footage of this building



## Tonka8 (Jun 18, 2021)

Is there any tool to help me figure the SF of this building thanks


----------



## G&Co. (Jul 29, 2020)

Pencil and paper and basic geometry. About 3 minutes.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

Here you go. Using Chief Architect.
Untitled 1.pdf
Andy.


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

You could use Green’s Theorem. Or just break it up into rectangles and triangles per G&Co’s suggestion.


----------



## Railman (Jan 19, 2008)

l'd do the greater dimensions as a large rectangle first.
Then subtract out the individual smaller areas from the large rectangle.
You can do Pythagorim formula on triangle, or just square the shape up into a rectangle, & divide by 2.


----------



## Dan Turner (Feb 6, 2019)

looks like 13,644 sq.ft. ± (xx) without the angle on the long 96.41' wall. The shaded area looks like stoop or entry....so it's not in this calculation.


who gets the invoice?


----------



## madrina (Feb 21, 2013)

Lxw=
+
Lxw=
+
1/2 bh=
*__*


----------



## wallmaxx (Jun 18, 2007)

I was going to do it on paper with a calculator................but then I don't frame with a hand saw or draw by hand......so like Andy did...use the tools available.

For area by hand, break everything into rectangles and triangles......very easy equations.
Or try sketchup, Chief Architect, Autocad, Softplan, Solid Builder, Revit, Archicad, Vectorworks, DraftSight......any 2D CAD app will do.
Is this a school project? 
It's an odd shaped "building". Is it commercial with angled roads? Tell us more....one post is just never enough!


----------



## NYCB (Sep 20, 2010)

wallmaxx said:


> I was going to do it on paper with a calculator................but then I don't frame with a hand saw or draw by hand......so like Andy did...use the tools available.
> 
> For area by hand, break everything into rectangles and triangles......very easy equations.
> Or try sketchup, Chief Architect, Autocad, Softplan, Solid Builder, Revit, Archicad, Vectorworks, DraftSight......any 2D CAD app will do.
> ...


That's a hell of a freebie for a new guy with one post.

I would be worried for the customers though if he couldn't figure it out on his own.


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

Well, I’m sorry you’re upset about the price, Mr. Customer. Thing is, you’ve got a number of zigs and zags in this place, and there ain’t no way in hell to figure the footage. I’m gonna have to order a butt load of material and hope it’s enough!


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

NYCB said:


> That's a hell of a freebie for a new guy with one post.
> 
> I would be worried for the customers though if he couldn't figure it out on his own.


My thoughts exactly. If he couldnt run those calcs, would you trust him to build? And thats a large commercial building ... ask the architect. Or maybe he is a student and we just did his homework.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Square footage should be on the plans. Probably on the plot plan or close by.


Mike.
*___*


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Print it on a sheet if paper, weigh the paper, cut out the perimeter, weigh that.

If you know the sq ft that fit on a full sheet of paper, multiply by cutout weight and divide by full sheet weight.

Also, there is a mechanical wheeled device that used to be used for measuring area, forgot the name.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Planimeter....


----------



## wallmaxx (Jun 18, 2007)

....it's the day after juneteenfph so I feel generous and extra helpful.............I really gotta work on that


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

hdavis said:


> Print it on a sheet if paper, weigh the paper, cut out the perimeter, weigh that.
> Would it be better to use cardboard? And what scale should he use? Maybe life size? .


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Cardboard isn't as consistent a weight (density) across a sheet, so cardboard is worse. It doesn't matter the size or scale, as long as you know what the scale is. The closer to the area taking up the whole sheet, the better.

Even a decent sheet of copier paper is amazingly consistent across the sheet.

Don't sweat on the stuff, though.


----------



## Half-fast Eddie (Aug 21, 2020)

I was kidding. If he did a full scale cutout on paper, it would take 13,000 sf of paper.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

Not one reply or thank you from Tonka8.

What a dick.

Andy.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Half-fast Eddie said:


> I was kidding. If he did a full scale cutout on paper, it would take 13,000 sf of paper.


Some hammerhead would take it seriously.... Maybe Tonka.


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

you can use an app on your phone named "image meter":13,730 ft2 aprox. 
For more hard-core stuff, we use apps like bluebeam or plan swift. You can also do this with the free version of Adobe reader. All you need to do is to convert the picture into a PDF first. There are lots of videos on YouTube.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

Apps, phones, computers, books, tables on and on....

How about a frame square, tape measure, pencil and paper....

To get REALLY advanced a VERY simple calculator....

But the guys teaching would not allow calculators until you could do it by hand....


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

griz said:


> But the guys teaching would not allow calculators until you could do it by hand....



LOL...bought one of the first Texas Instrument pocket calculators offered my first year of college in 1974.
Wasn't allowed to use it...in class.
$147.00


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I wrote an excel spreadsheet to do this. Really more handy for deed descriptiions with compass headings and distances. Doing that by hand is tedious.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

You've had a computer too long....

I knew the girl at the bldg mitigation desk, she would often ask me to calc the sq footage off a plan....


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I made up the spreadsheet when I heard a rumor an empty lot was below minimum to be buildable, but tax records showed it was above the minimum. I just built it the way I hand calculate. 100% chance I would have fat fingered something on a hand calculator and it had to be totally precise.

It was below the minimum. No lot plan, something like 7 corners on the thing. 

I've had a computer long enough I try not to use it, but there are times....


----------



## jeffthebuilder (May 28, 2020)

https://floorplanner.com/



I use this all the time.


----------



## CarpenterRN (Dec 3, 2009)

Make a triangle. The outside line between the two >90 angles is the hypotenuse. The rest can be broken up into rectangles.

Edit: this response was to squiresjd with his question as to how the area could be calculated in a few minutes with pencil and paper, as G&Co. wrote, given the obtuse angles. However, his profile and all posts have been deleted within the past 10 minutes for whatever reason.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

That dick had the one post and never responded back on any of the answers.

I hereby take back my original post in this thread.

Voila.

Andy.


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

I go with volume divided by height. Takes alot of water, though.


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

Ed Corrigan said:


> I go with volume divided by height. Takes alot of water, though.


How high is water?


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

To the top, of course.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Make that long angle a square then divided in half.


Mike.
*___*


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

Ed Corrigan said:


> To the top, of course.


OP, we need the distance to top of building.


----------



## BethWilliams (Aug 4, 2021)

Green’s Theorem is the better way to calculate.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

BethWilliams said:


> Green’s Theorem is the better way to calculate.


Why?


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

hdavis said:


> Why?


Its actually a bad method.

Estimating has to meet with several criteria:

1) Accurate enough for the application. It meets that requirement.

2) relatively quick to do. It does not meet that requirement.

3) quickly verifiable. it does not meet that.

4) easy to replicate by others. It does not meet that either.


----------



## CarpenterRN (Dec 3, 2009)

Figuring an area is not estimating, it's simple math used to get a real number that one can then use in estimating a project. You only "estimate" an area if there are no dimensions to work with.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

Seriously?

Calculus on a problem like this?

I don't even see any curves.

Andy.


----------



## Pounder (Nov 28, 2020)

CarpenterRN said:


> Figuring an area is not estimating, it's simple math used to get a real number that one can then use in estimating a project. You only "estimate" an area if there are no dimensions to work with.


If there are no dimensions there is nothing to estimate. The building in the op could be a tiny house or an aircraft hanger at Boing.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Here's how I would do it. Divide this in half the rest is just squares. The markup I used won't allow me to tilt the square with the drawing.










Mike.
*___*


----------



## CarpenterRN (Dec 3, 2009)

Pounder said:


> If there are no dimensions there is nothing to estimate. The building in the op could be a tiny house or an aircraft hanger at Boing.


I was referring to estimating the area. Had nothing to do with a job estimate. You can walk into a place and take a guess at the square footage and that would be an "estimate" of that area, whether right or wrong.


----------



## Pounder (Nov 28, 2020)

CarpenterRN said:


> I was referring to estimating the area. Had nothing to do with a job estimate. You can walk into a place and take a guess at the square footage and that would be an "estimate" of that area, whether right or wrong.


I thought you meant estimating the area from a line drawing without dimensions. Sorry for the call out.


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

Calidecks said:


> Here's how I would do it. Divide this in half the rest is just squares. The markup I used won't allow me to tilt the square with the drawing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the problem is that it leaves room for human error. When you do this is likely someone will say: "check his numbers".


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

There's always room for human error. And why would I care if someone checks my numbers? If I make a mistake tell me about it and we'll get it right. 


Mike.
*___*


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Alex R said:


> the problem is that it leaves room for human error. When you do this is likely someone will say: "check his numbers".


And tell me how that's not going to be accurate?


Mike.
*___*


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

Calidecks said:


> And tell me how that's not going to be accurate?
> 
> 
> Mike.
> *___*


So you have never seen someone doing (including yourself) an error?

This is not school in which you make an error and just lose some marks.

This could be a take off you are doing for pouring concrete and now you over ordered concrete that you cant return or dump anywhere. Or you short ordered concrete which you cannot get right away.

Or you are bidding on a job and you win it or lose it because of the error with its concecuences.

Or you re doing this to bill a client and made an error, it you over bill, the client will think you are a thief.

What im trying to tell you is that whatever method you use for a take off has to meet several criteria (not just accuracy).

Being "accurate enough" (you dont have to be 100%) is one of the criteria but it has to also be quick, easily verifiable/reliable, easily saved on phone, computer, etc.

The method you use is fine, if it was a simple square, rectangle, circle, triangle, trapezoid or any simple known figure but as soon as it becomes a combination figures or irregular shape you have to use other methods.

I did this with a simple app on my phone. Less than 2 mins. It can be done as well with bluebeam, Adobe and many others.

You will get situations in which you will have to take an aerial picture with your phone.

The case you will see below is a place I had to drive 3 hours (6hrs) to measure this excavation which was already partially backfilled in which the site people and client could not agree with their manual calculations. I took a picture with my drone added a scale and end of argument.


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

Adding a bit to what I mentioned above just look at this text I got this week from a guy with over a decade of experience. He needs concrete in a remote area. The manual calculation is very straight forward but still to make sure, check the text he sent me.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

OMG, this has devolved.


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

Alex R said:


> So you have never seen someone doing (including yourself) an error?
> 
> This is not school in which you make an error and just lose some marks.
> 
> ...


Soooo.....
Real life. Got it. Most guys don't get the drones and computers out to figure out such a simple project as OP presented.

Have you ever heard the expression " if you didn't have a yard left over, you were a wheelbarrow short"? If grade is dead nuts on, still call for a 5% overage.

Do your math, double check, life is good. Happens all the time.

Those apps will be able to give me the exact square footage of a 10 x 10 room. Wish I could figure that out by myself. If only there was a way...


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

Ed Corrigan said:


> Soooo.....
> Real life. Got it. Most guys don't get the drones and computers out to figure out such a simple project as OP presented.
> 
> Have you ever heard the expression " if you didn't have a yard left over, you were a wheelbarrow short"? If grade is dead nuts on, still call for a 5% overage.
> ...


 The original post does not require a drone or a computer as the picture was already given. I did it in less than 2 mins with my phone and I would say most people have access to a phone these days.

Even if you did not have a picture, just a physical blueprint on the field. You can take a picture with your phone a measure it with a simple app.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Alex R said:


> So you have never seen someone doing (including yourself) an error?
> 
> This is not school in which you make an error and just lose some marks.
> 
> ...


It's not a take off for anything other than an estimate. 

If your doing estimates correctly you don't use square footage. 

Again there can be human error no matter how you do it. 

I never said my way was the only way. 


Mike.
*___*


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Not to mention a set of plans already has the square footage. 


Mike.
*___*


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

Thank you for posting on Contractortalk.com…


----------



## Alex R (Apr 25, 2021)

Calidecks said:


> Not to mention a set of plans already has the square footage.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> *___*


The original post did not have the square footage (or he at least needed to confirm it) and even those are wrong sometimes, I have seen my fair share of those due to stairs, open to below, etc.

and just to close my participation on this old tread. I will show you another sample I got recently in which some repair work was happening on a portion of a street roundabout.








Most people on cases like this will average the 3 widths (11+12+8=10.33) and multiply by the average of the two lenghts (30.5+22.5=26.5). That is accurate enough for most cases. 10.33 x 26.5 = 274 

If you want to be a bit more accurate on the width, you should multiply the middle measurement by 4 and add the other 2 and then divide by 6. But again now many people will not understand this and question it. like w= (11+8+4×12)/6= 11.16 which upps the area to 11.16 x 26.5 = 296 

The other thing to be more accurate is treat the figure to what it resembles a "annular sector". But on this you are missing the "angle" (which can be measured on the field with your phone too) and people will question this even more. 










So as you go deeper with accuracy you are breaking other rules and for that reason you stay with the first option.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

This doesn't need to be complicated. 

Your way has much more room for human error. 

Again it's not a material takeoff. It's an estimate.


Mike.
*___*


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

Alex R said:


> The original post does not require a drone or a computer as the picture was already given. I did it in less than 2 mins with my phone and I would say most people have access to a phone these days.
> 
> Even if you did not have a picture, just a physical blueprint on the field. You can take a picture with your phone a measure it with a simple app.


Orrrr...

I can do it without an app just the same.

Without my phone...

Which I reserve for phone messaging and annoying contractor talk folks with.


----------



## VinylHanger (Jul 14, 2011)

Alex R said:


> The original post did not have the square footage (or he at least needed to confirm it) and even those are wrong sometimes, I have seen my fair share of those due to stairs, open to below, etc.
> 
> and just to close my participation on this old tread. I will show you another sample I got recently in which some repair work was happening on a portion of a street roundabout.
> View attachment 518265
> ...


Just make that a box and order a reddimix truck. Jeez.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

I think that it is about time that we address the 800-pound gorilla in the room.






Namely, that this ****ing stupid thread is still alive.


Andy.


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> 800-pound


And just how did you arrive at that number?


----------



## CarpenterRN (Dec 3, 2009)

He used an app to do the calculation after taking an aerial photo to map out the space the gorilla is occupying.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Sep 13, 2008)

**** you.










Just kidding.

that was very funny.

Andy.


----------



## CarpenterRN (Dec 3, 2009)

Not a dig on you by any means. I was going along with the app is better thing, as professed by another


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Alex R said:


> The original post did not have the square footage (or he at least needed to confirm it) and even those are wrong sometimes, I have seen my fair share of those due to stairs, open to below, etc.


even my deck plans have a computer generated square footage including stairs. 

So it seems the only computer square footage solution is your phone.










Mike.
*___*


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

I really want to unfollow this thread, but I am afraid of missing out.


----------



## Pounder (Nov 28, 2020)

If I had to figure this out and it had to be accurate, I'd draw it in Visual Cad then push the "Measure Area" button. That would only be accurate to about a thousandth of a square inch, but almost certainly close enough for construction.


----------



## reggi (Oct 12, 2020)

Pounder said:


> That would only be accurate to about a thousandth of a square inch, but almost certainly close enough for construction.


We need *more *_*precision!*_


----------



## Ed Corrigan (Jul 18, 2019)

reggi said:


> And just how did you arrive at that number?


Personally, I would take the volume, divide by the average pound per cubic foot, don't forget bone density. Etc, etc, etc...

Aw, hell... There's gotta be an app for that!!!


----------



## Joe Fairplay (Aug 26, 2021)

Tonka8 said:


> Is there any tool to help me figure the SF of this building thanks
> View attachment 512969


Besides using a machine, the easiest way to handle this is to draw the unit into a square which is easy to calculate the overall area. Then subtract the 3 rectangles and one triangle areas from the total.


----------

