Replies

1. 
   calvin | Mar 20, 2012 06:01pm | #1

   Well

   The grading, if it wouldn't interfere with sloping away from the house-would certainly be doable.  If the brick only goes down to a brick ledge that would be visible-then no, not such a good idea.

   Where is the floor line for the upper level.  You show changing the windows in the lower level taller-there's a header in there and of course, the floor framing.   Knowing this, raising the windows doesn't seem too likely unless you could change the header or bury it in the floor framing.

        Can you cut the brick out and redo?  If you're ambitious and talented enough-then sure-if the above is figured out.

   The upper windows, you appear to have dropped them-will your view out be compromised?  Will they leave you a means of egress other than the stairway?

   Raise the roof?   Looks like you have removed and changed the roof to a gable-hence rebuilding the thing.   All possible, but again-do you have the time and talent to open up the place for that time period.

   How much if you do it yourself?   Get real.   The cost could be the same amount less the labor-you do all the work, buy the same material as a contractor.   No?

   Best of luck.

2. 
   JimB | Mar 20, 2012 06:27pm | #2

   Anything is theoretically possible, but

   there are some issues that you may not have considered.

   The top of the lower level windows are probably roughly 6'8" from the floor, which is standard so that the top of the windows matches the top of the doors.  Although it's probably not framed this way now, if the rim joist for the upper level floor is sized properly, you could raise the top of the windows to roughly the ceiling height. 

   Your proposed "after" picture seems to show the door dropped lower on the elevation to make it line up closer with the top of the lower level windows.  Lowering the entry level may be a real problem since it will almost certainly require the stair well to the upper floor to extend farther toward the back of the house.

   These aren't the only issues in determining whether your idea is practical from a cost perspective.  It's not likely that you'll be able to resolve that issue without the advice of a good design-build contractor or architect.  

3. 
   DanH | Mar 20, 2012 08:20pm | #3

   I gather you have what we refer to around here as a "split entry", with the lower level several steps down from the entryway.  This is why the lower windows are so small, relatively.

   One of the reasons this is done around here is that, due to the frost depth, you need to dig down about 4 feet to install a legal foundation anyway, so you might as well excavate the whole area and put living space there.  Depending on where you live, if you expose the entire first floor wall you will remove the soil providing frost protection to the foundation and may risk structural problems (or at least be out of compliance with code).

   Aside from that issue, can all of this be done?  Certainly.  How much will it cost?  More that $12.38, less that $37.6 million.  Can you do it yourself?  I seriously doubt it.

4. 
   JimB | Mar 21, 2012 04:22pm | #4

   I will point out that I think your "after" improves the look

   signficantly, even if it's not realistic.  Split entry homes are, in my personal opinion, one of the least attractive styles, and probably the most difficult improve the looks of.  Too bad, because they abound in my area and if someone came up with a low-cost, practical solution for making them look better, they'd probably make a fortune.

   In any case, I suggest that you try searching for sites on renovating/remodelling split entries or bi-level homes.  Maybe you'll find something that will spark a great idea.  Here's one site to start withhttp://www.splitlevel.net/bi-level.html.

5. 
   runnerguy | Mar 23, 2012 05:51am | #5

   Very hard to make a split entry look like anything but a split entry but I'd recommend this book to get you going:

   http://www.amazon.com/Get-Your-House-Right-Architectural/dp/1402736282/ref=pd_sim_b_3

   Doug

1. 
   DanH | Mar 24, 2012 09:40am | #7

   That book recommendation is a hoot -- "4 new from $238.72" on Amazon and "Forwarded by H.R.H. The Prince of Wales".

6. 
   DanH | Mar 23, 2012 07:38am | #6

   In terms of improving the looks of the house, some plantings would help immensely.

   And, though it's partly a matter of taste, a split entry looks worse when it's done up so formally, and is so symmetrical.  Anything that can be done (plantings, a different portico, etc) to remove the boring symmetry will help.  Symmetry in architecture is generally a sign of poor imagination.

7. 
   DanH | Mar 24, 2012 12:41pm | #8

   My tastes run more toward Susan Susanka's "Not So Big House" paradigm.  (Though even her stuff tends to be a bit pretentious.)

1. 
   MarkH | Mar 24, 2012 10:03pm | #9

   The book is more about proportion than size.  Even small houses need to be properly proportioned to be attractive.  It's good reading.

2. 
   runnerguy | Mar 25, 2012 06:56am | #10

   As Mark has said the book really isn't about house size, it's about detailing and proportions. Getting a dormer detailed right is the same whether the house it sits on is 2000SF or 6000SF. And I got mine used through Amazon last year for about $20.

   Great book.

   Doug

1. 
   DanH | Mar 25, 2012 07:29pm | #11

   The thing is, a slavish adherence to "classical architecture" is what led to the original design of the house.

1. 
   runnerguy | Mar 26, 2012 06:47am | #12

   How can that house be a "slavish adherence to "classical architecture""? True "classical architecture" is dependent on connectedness, on continuites, on the relation of one element to another as well as the relation of each element to the whole. 

   The habit of resorting to tacked on symbols to create the illusion of classical architecture is a result of believing one can actually get something for nothing. The belief that a house could be labeled as "colonial" and someone would accept it even if all the traditional relationships between the building elelments were completly obliterated.

   Doug

1. 
   DanH | Mar 26, 2012 07:15am | #13

   Well, for one, "slavish

   Well, for one, "slavish adherence to classical architecture" is the belief that classical architecture is the only possible architecture, which seems to be a commonly-held belief here.