Replies

1. 
   splintergroupie | Dec 04, 2006 08:27am | #1

   You should be sure to find out if you tear the house down whether you can legally rebuild; three units on one lot may have been grand-fathered in to your historical neighborhood.

   If you decide to get rid of the house, see if any house-movers are interested in it. I bought my house from a fellow who removed it to make way for an expansion at the mall. As he told me, he can remove the house for much less than the tear down costs bec he can then resell it to make a few more bucks.

1. 
   MBaybut | Dec 04, 2006 08:34am | #2

   That's a good point. I don't think that will be a problem though, they've recently started allowing new construction with living space above the garage. I think there's a rental apartment shortage locally. I'm going to call up tommorow and check up on that.
   Mike

1. 
   splintergroupie | Dec 04, 2006 09:05am | #3

   You said your rentals were legal, but i was still thinking there might be a units-per-lot limit that you might be presently exceeding. You might also want to check to see what the setbacks are. I thought of it bec of a friend who wanted to rebuild her rotting garage in the exact same footprint, but wasn't allowed bec of new, improved setbacks since her neighborhood was first built. She's a box-what-box? thinker, so she waited a few months and submitted new plans with new, improved lot lines drawn farther from her proposed replacement building. That worked! <G>

1. 
   JasonG | Dec 04, 2006 03:17pm | #4

   If it's a historic neighborhood, can you tear it down? Are their tax credits for improving the existing historic home? And, as someone said, the apartments may have been grandfathered in, but once you tear down, you may lose that.Also, do the apartments in the year have to the road (or other exit) besides what contractors will be using? If you tear down or do a major remodel, tennants will likely be less that pleased if they can't access their apartments (or sleep) because of a major rennovation just feet away from their front doors.Jason

2. 
   IdahoDon | Dec 04, 2006 04:28pm | #6

   You should be sure to find out if you tear the house down whether you can legally rebuild; three units on one lot may have been grand-fathered in to your historical neighborhood.

   That was the first thing that popped into my head as well.  The absolute worst thing anyone can do in our historic districts is tear down something that would have been grandfathered in.

   Right now we are building in a historic district and the shed that was originally here provides 225 sqft of space that we otherwise couldn't build on the main level, the same in a new room under a new pre-cast concrete slab, and with a new steeper pitched roof the attic space is perfect for the hvac system. 

   Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.

2. 
   PatchogPhil | Dec 04, 2006 04:06pm | #5

   Around here (Long Island),  if you tear down and build new it is considered a "new" building and subject to new (higher) property tax assessments.  If you just modify then you do not get the new higher tax assessments.

   So what people do is,  they tear everything down EXCEPT one exterior stud wall.  Usually a gable wall.  Then they build new all around.  Property taxes are based on the old assessment.  They even can add more to the footprint and tax increases are based on the old lower assessment.

   Find out if leaving one small stud wall helps in anyway,  i.e. taxes and zoning do's and dont's.

    

    

   Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
   

3. 
   BillHartmann | Dec 04, 2006 05:15pm | #7

   There are literly 1000's of items that you need to consider before you do this.

   A couple have been mentioned such as setbacks and zoning.

   But there are many others such as parking requirements, percentage area of the lot that can be used. Maybe replacement of service lines that require road cuts with very high cost on those.

   There may be very expensive impact fees. Architecutral review might require extensive (exp$ive) exterior treatments to match similar houses.

   While a quick talk with the people in building/zone are helpful DON'T MAKE ANY UNREVERSABLE CHANGES UNTIL EVERYTHING IS VERIFIED AND APPROVED. The clerks don't have any liability if they forget one requirment or read the maps for the block over.

   And depending on the city there are often 2 or more different departments or outside groups that have to approve all of these.

   And last, but not least you have not indicated that you have done any review of the cost/return of any of these options are.

   Do you have any idea of what the market value is for the existing buildings. For a remodeled house, For a new house. And what are the cost of remodeling? The cost of a teardown/rebuild?

4. 
   frenchy | Dec 04, 2006 07:08pm | #8

   MBaybut,

        Tearing down will net you several things.  first the value of the home is higher than a remodel (most times)  second the efficency of a new home will exceed a remodel  (always) third the cost of new contruction will generally be lower than the cost of a remodel, (usually)

1. 
   splintergroupie | Dec 04, 2006 08:04pm | #9

   Those are some very generalized statements. Historical value is a real value and a remodeled home's efficiency is a product of the care gone into remodeling, not its age. My moved, recycled, remodeled house with its cels-filled walls, thermal break, and rainscreen is far superior to average construction for far less money.

1. 
   PatchogPhil | Dec 04, 2006 08:44pm | #11

   EXACTLY!  You said what I was thinking too.

   I get to see proof every time it snows here.  I look at my roof (with 16 inches of cellulose in the air-sealed floor of attic) of my 1942 but renovated home and the roofs of all the 5 yr old McMansions built up the road.  Guess who's roof melts first?

     

   Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

1. 
   splintergroupie | Dec 04, 2006 09:29pm | #13

   Same here. I was panning the scenery from a high point on a road yesterday looking for my errant dog when i noticed how few of the many new homes in this area still had a full cap of snow on them, unlike my 1940s-era house. They've got a LOT more gables and palladium windows, though... <G>

1. 
   PatchogPhil | Dec 04, 2006 09:34pm | #14

   Just more areas prone to LEAK when done by fast moving crews not paying attention to details.

     

   Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

2. 
   frenchy | Dec 04, 2006 10:37pm | #15

   Hello Splintergroupie,,

            As I said (most times)  I certainly do agree with you when we are discussing homes of historical value but not all old homes are historically important..   The advantage I see of new contruction is using new techniques such as SIP or ICF construction.. right now the most recent home I saw built as a ICF home was bid at the same cost as a stick built house and you must agree that either an ICF or a SIP home will outperform a traditional stick built house..

     Moving a house is really problematic.. if the house is nearby and you have a decent  mover there is potential for savings. Too often that isn't the case.

1. 
   MikeSmith | Dec 05, 2006 12:09am | #16

   i don't think you know enough about the cost of construction..

    remodeling and  additions can cost more per sf, but  usually the total cost will still be less than a tear-down & rebuild

   and... i can give my customers any creature comfort they want in a remodel or addition

   if you are basing your comment on using SIPS.. the additon can still be SIPS.. and i can bring the original structure to a higher level than most sips construction..

   you are projecting again based on your use of SIPSMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore

1. 
   frenchy | Dec 05, 2006 05:18am | #18

   Mike Smith,

        Remodels can easy cost more than complete tear downs.  Now there are plenty of reasons where a remodel is called for. Building restrictions, lot considerations, a structure worthy of saving, historic value, etc.

       I work with both new construction builders and remodelers.  they each have their nitch..  The house as it was described sounds as if it has none of those considerations.. If your only consideration is saving a few 2x4's I suggest a tear down as being more economical..

          I hate that answer.. in many cases the 2x4's that wind up in a dumpster came from old growth forests that simply cannot be replaced.  it may have taken 2000 years to grow the tree that produced those timbers and if it's just a plain old house and they wind up in the dumpster ater only a half a century of use I feel that is a real crime..  But it sounds as if costs were a primary consideration. In which case I suggest that you rescue worthy boards from the dumpster instead of trying to patch together a house to save them..

       

     But if you want to add a second story onto a house designed as a single story the cost of the added structure and the work required will often exceed that of a fresh start..

        To be fair I've not looked at the house and am only going by an impression I got.. Possibly it could be saved.. possibly it's worthy etc.. but cheap homes built to a price back then aren't usually worthy..

2. 
   Omah | Dec 05, 2006 10:12am | #19

   I think you should check out a good architech Although they generally dont like us capenters very much because we wright on their plans, they do come up with some good ideas once in a while.

3. 
   frenchy | Dec 06, 2006 07:54pm | #20

   Omah,

    My BIL is a architect.  I know several others who are also architects..  The common consensus is that if we are dealing on  pure cost basis a tear down is cheaper than a gut and rebuild.. of course there are exceptions.. I've listed several. 

4. 
   Omah | Dec 06, 2006 08:44pm | #21

   Wow! architechs coming together in a concensus, I guess the" end" is really near.

5. 
   MikeSmith | Dec 06, 2006 08:49pm | #22

   i doubt it... if the existing structure can be modified to be useful, it will be cheaper to incorporate it into the finished product

   let's take an example  you buy a house on a lot for  $450K

   the same lot next door is vacant and is on the market for  $150K

   so apparently the value of the house is $300K

   demolition will run apx. $30K.. so the tear down has a cost of  $330K

   that has to be added to the cost of the new building...

   let's say the new building cost's  $300K

   now you have land + tear down + new construction

   $150 + $330 + $300 =  $780

   or buy the house for $450 and remodel it for $200 = $650

   play with the numbers if you want... but there is nothing cut and dried , nor is there a consensus , about the cost of tear down & rebuild  vs.  remodel

   now.... if the existing structure won't suit, and you want the location .. then by all means tear it down , but don't tell me it's going to be cheaper as a blanket statementMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore

6. 
   frenchy | Dec 06, 2006 10:02pm | #23

   Mike Smith,

    I certainly didn't make a blank statement.  I was carefull to list several circumstances where by a gut and rebuild would be the best approach.. and I did not say those were the only reasons..

    However I go back to what the original poster said about his house and the way he decribed it.. plus the tone of what he seemed to want..

     I guess we should both ask further before we recommend one appraoch over the other.. but I will state that given what I read   (and knowing the way I feel about tossing old growth wood into a dumpster) I would still suggest a tear down as a better choice.

      I'm courious, my tear down didn't cost me a tenth of what you said were the costs. Did I actaully save that Much?  Are those east coast costs that high?  What do you pay for a 40 yard dumpster?

    I'd crunch the numbers differantly than you seemed to. You put a value on the house of $300,000 yet it winds up in a dumpster.. If the house just needed a face lift and that were the route taken I could agree with you.. a remodel would be the way to go.. However thus far no consideration was given to the use of new construction techniques. like SIP's and ICF's with their effiecencies..  (we also didn't discuss moving another house to the site or prefabed construction)   In addition making small rooms large enough to satisfy the open space requirements common today  can dramatically add to the costs of a remodel..

      If the client wanted 10 foot ceiling when there are currantly 8 foot doesn't that throw costs far off as well? 

     I'll admit most of that was simply my impression.  further conferances would be required to even begin to judge one appraoch over the other..

    My neighbor who does remodels only sees every home as a remodel.   He frankly doesn't want to tear down because then his higher costs are exposed..  Many many contractors can underbid him. I don't recall a new home yet that he won the bid on..

    He does nice work, turns sows ears into silk purses, but his cost structure doesn't let him compete in new home construction. Is it possible that the same bias affects you as well?  

    

7. 
   MikeSmith | Dec 07, 2006 12:04am | #24

   frenchy.... i'd venture to say  that , yes, you're correct.. i cannot compete in the new home market..  unless the competition builds the way  i do... and they don't

   but ... suppose we do a design  / build.. an i get to write the specs the way we build... then the tables would be turned

   think of how you built your house... suppose you put it out to bid... but kept all of the same specs... how many "new home builders" would be competitive... probably not many..

   but all of those little quirky things you would want ?... they are just another day at the office for us.. ever thig we do is quirky... everything is a prototype... since 1972 i'd guess that we have built 20 new homes

   complete from clearing the land to the final punchlist..

    but the margins in new homes are just not very interesting so we don't chase them... we build what our customers want...

   and another thing

   with all of the regulations for planning , zoning, coastal commissions, & wetlands.... it can  often tak two years to get approval for new construction.... and the restrictions  can be so onerous that the owner decides not to build... but remodeling and additions have a much better chance of approval

    Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore

8. 
   Woodmann | Dec 07, 2006 01:07am | #25

   I live and build in Orange County in southern Calif.  We have what is known as one wall standing. When you tear down an exhisting res structure and leave one wall standing you are taxed on a remodel verses new construction.  Quite a large ammount less.. In an area known as Rossmore , a very upscale neighborhood  many home owner  have taken this  approach. 

   Woodmann

9. 
   jrnbj | Dec 12, 2006 06:30am | #28

   Not to quibble, but I think you are way under-estimating the lot cost
   I've seen seriously trashed houses go for only a little less than pristine ones in the same block....

2. 
   splintergroupie | Dec 05, 2006 05:17am | #17

   There's also the factor of where the owner will live during the tear-down compared to being able to put up with some disruption building on to the original, not to mention that if a person intends to do any of the work themselves, the scale of an addition is more manageable than a whole house. I agree not all old homes are historically valuable, but neither of us knows in the OP's case enough to call it, as you did. While you tend to get fixated on SIPS (if i were to build new, this would be my first choice, too), i can extoll the virtues of recycling whole houses in that i have a 3000 SF, very well insulated, superbly framed house in better quality materials, into which i MIGHT have sunk $40K at the outside. Of course, i don't have the window trim on, yet... <G>

5. 
   splintergroupie | Dec 04, 2006 08:19pm | #10

   If you would like to open up the house to be more modern on the inside, the bearing wall that runs down the center can likely be opened up and the load above carried on a header. The loads aren't that hard to calculate if you'd like to get some span tables and educate yourself, but if you aren't familiar with it, have your work checked over by a pro. It's not terribly arcane stuff, but it's very important. In older homes, it's not uncommon to have supporting structure violated by HVAC, plumbers, and electricians, too, so you have to take that into account as well as the snow and wind loading for your area. OK...it might be a little complicated... <G>

6. 
   MBaybut | Dec 04, 2006 09:25pm | #12

   Thanks All,
   Here's my situation. The street where the property is located has about 14 homes on it with prices ranging from about $390,000 (mine) to over $1,000,000 with the median being about $650-750,000 and an average of 2500 sq ft. The house next door was torn down about 2 years ago and a McMansion built in it's place. Being my place is a rental it has no homestead exemtions, so, the Mc M pushed my property tax up almost $7000. I recieved a letter the other day from another neighbour that intends to built a large addition on his home, so I'm expecting my taxes to jump again when he gets through with that. My taxes have been going up each year by about $1000. I can't see anybody (I maybe wrong here) paying top dollar for a 1100 sq ft bungalow. I wouldn't mind moving in myself but 1100 sq ft is way too small. If I do move in, that will put the homestead on it and limit my taxes. I was thinking of keeping the apartments intact, with no work being done on them. I placed a call to the city to see what assistance they could help me with. Still waiting for return call. Propery is in St Petersburg, FL if that makes any difference.

7. 
   Quickstep | Dec 11, 2006 11:27pm | #26

   My .02 from the homeowners side.

    

   I had a substantial renovation done a couple of years ago, including removal of some bearing walls and an addition. If I had it to do again, I think I'd tear it down. Not because it didn't turn out OK, but because I think I would have gotten an overall better product if it had been re-built from the ground up. We ended up moving out anyway. Had the house been historical, or had the least bit of panache, it might have been different, but that wasn't the case for me. I'd imagine this is true most places, but especially true in my area. DO NOT tear down a thing before you have the new permit in your hand!!!

1. 
   JoeArchitect | Dec 12, 2006 12:13am | #27

   It sounds like your permit submittal package wasn't complete or you were doing the work in a very difficult town. I should've look at your profile to see where you're from.

   In the municipalities that I've done work in, they won't let you tear down if you're not building a new home in it's place, unless you own the lot next door then you can argue you're doing it only for a bigger yard.