I am considering a major renovation of my residence – a 1951 brick faced rambler in Arlington Virginia. I have read and talked to lots and lots of builders, architects, etc on the pros and cons of renovation versus demolition/rebuilding from scratch.
I would like readers here to weigh in. You, who have no financial gain in my decision, might actually give me some real advice – including the relative costs differences. You shouldn’t need to know the quoted building costs in my area to do that.
Many thanks for adding your opinions.
David
Replies
That's a hard question to answer. What condition is the place in? Do you want something dramatically different than you now have?
the basement is dry and completely renovated 2 years ago ($40K). furnace and CAC 5 years old.
If I revovate, I'd take off the roof, gut the entire house (some patch work would be required for different window placement), rebuild the main floor and put on a second floor. The footprint would also change (an "L" addition on the backside).
If you can't quantify the issues, can you offer some things that I possibly haven't considered?
Builders here have told me that it will cost 30-40 percent more per square foot to renovate, yet these same people suggest I renovate. How can that make sense?
Thanks
Builders here have told me that it will cost 30-40 percent more per square foot to renovate, yet these same people suggest I renovate. How can that make sense?
It makes sense because houses were built MUCH better (better longevity) 50 years ago than today. My house was built in 1949, and I'll bet that the floors are strong enough on the second floor to park py pickup there.
Got the same confidence in new construction?
Unless you're the lead dog, the view just never changes.
I'd take a home built in the 1950's and early 60's anytime over most homes built in the 80's. Homes built nowadays could be iffy if the speculators building the home are hiring only low ball subs who just bought themselves their first carpenter's belt and truck. Builders of homes like that are only looking out for their profit and surface showing not a quality longlasting home..
I have to disagree, I actually don't think houses were built better back then, some were and some weren't. I have a 100 year old house with 2X8's spanning 16 feet. Even on This Old House, they are frequently using the phrase "They don't build them like this anymore, THANK GOD".
Chances are there was a wall taken out in that span to create a larger room. Thank heavens the 2x8s were at least real 2x8s. In the 80's a home's worst enemy was the plumber who nothces any 2x member in his way knowing that he'll be long gone before the members fail. The only thing that makes any home a good quality construction is good quality trades who take pride in their work and good quality supervision to oversee because afterall we all only human.
If you're ripping off the roof and ceiling, and gutting out the interior walls, it'll be less expensive time wise because you're not shoring up bearing framing above and working around obstacles trying not to damage anything that's suppose to remain. If you're keeping the ceiling intact and opening some walls, you're shoring up framing, putting in new beams and headers, and maybe even tearing up the basement ceiling and walls. Complete teardown has its advantages as you know everything is new, and there are no hidden surprises below grade as is cracked foundation walls, etc. Depending on the age of your home and the quality of the construction, you maybe better off tearin it down if it's in a subdivision where the trades worked on it as a job and went on next door to do another, instead of working on it originally with pride knowing they were working on someone's home.
You shouldn't need to know the quoted building costs in my area to do that.
Why not? That's the first thing I'd ask.
The $$ are what the final decision should be based on, not what we think, but what you have been quoted by the people who will be doing the work.
Kinda like asking, should I buy 10 donuts, or a dozen........
Two important questions need to be answered in order to get an educated guess......how many do you need, and what do they cost?
take a look around at your neighbors' houses. are they two stories? how would the changes you are considering affect the way the house relates to the surrounding properties? if you are the only two story 3,500 sq.ft. home surrounded by one story 1500 sq.ft. ramblers, then you're going to stick out like a sore thumb and your house will never fit in.
Of course it could fit. You need to design it respecting your neighbors and the architectural character of your home. If all you do is put on a box, you fail the test. Any yahoo can build a box. You gotta do more.
One thing not mentioned in this discussion is zoning/bulding requirements. Reconstruction is considered remodelling in my town, and has fewer requirements that raise the cost. Demolition means that you must meet the requirements for new construction.
Our town has instituted maximum percentage coverage of a lot with hard surfaces (including house, paved driveway, in-ground swimming pool, etc.). On some lots, houses that were built perfectly legally cannot be built today. Remodelling allows the house to remain.
In another town, the owner "remodeled" his existing 25 x 25 minihouse to a 4,000 sq. ft. monster by adding onto it. The zoning laws allowed it. And, oh yes, about a year or two later he tore down the old part of the house!!!
In some Chicago area suburbs, you're required to provide fire sprinklering in new home, or in existing homes where you add mor than 50% of new floor area. You still have to abide by recent zoning restrictions, and no matter what you add on or remodel, you have to hardwire the smoke alarm in each bedroom, on each floor in the hall, etc. In the far NW burbs you may have to change your septic size even if you just add a bedroom. Best is to check with your local municipality.