Renovation vs rebuild
11/13/2017 at 2:09:18 PM
We bought a 1940s home 3 years ago knowing it would need work. The plan was to completely develop the basement with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, redo the ducting so we can run off 1 furnace instead of 2, and a laundry room. I'd also like to relocate the stairs so they are not in the middle of my living room. The foundation needs to be repaired/waterproofed and basement floor redone as it is not level. We would need to add a sump pump as well. We also want to eventually redo the kitchen, the windows need to be redone, probably a new roof in about 5 years and the floor joists could be leveled. Considering all that needs to be done, would it be better to tear down and start over or renovate? We are located in Standard alberta.
11/13/2017 at 3:51:50 PM
Hi Vicki
Only in my opinion would I say, restoring a old home is far superior the a total rebuild. Mainly because your older home is very well constructed and there is a lot more wood and metal in the house, opposed to, unfortunate cheaper quality materials and PLASTICS in most all construction materials now. That said, You must do your homework and find the right people that will restore/renovate your home properly. A sign of a good Restoration Specialist will tell you that much of the main material (Framing) will be Re-used as is or slightly altered to suite your design. Much of the integrity of your home is probably very much still intact.
Carful planning and a good waterproof foundation is a good start. You want a good Restoration Specialist Not a Joe Blow Renovator.
11/13/2017 at 9:01:52 PM
Vicki, It is not an easy question. Cost wise, you are probable better off doing a complete re-build. The other side is the quality of the old building. It may be worth doing a close study to see if you can determine how the building has stood up over the years. If some major cracks and/or rot is evident, mixing just those items can become very costly. It comes down to what you want. If it is just a place to live, without the historic value, I suggest a total replacement with new, up-to-date materials and up to current safety standards. Its your home and any renovation usually uncovers all sorts of hidden items ... that add to the cost.
My vote is for new.
11/14/2017 at 3:16:55 AM
This is always a tricky question. If it were me I'd look to build a budget comparing the two, which would be a great start to the financial component. With financial considerations in mind I would decide what I want, being true to yourself - would you prefer new construction or a restoration project? Both have positives and negatives, I personally enjoy bringing older homes back to life so restoration is always my first option..but of course this is a personal choice you would have to make!
Cheers!
11/14/2017 at 8:34:22 AM
You have to consult a reputable and honest build / design company that will explain to you the exact process, timing, cost and the end result benefits for each of the two options and based on such information you would be able to decide which way to proceed. All the best Vicki!
11/14/2017 at 6:27:35 PM
Normally in 1940s house it would be cheaper to do a complete new build. This all depends if you like the heritage of the house and without seeing the extensive Renovations but it does sound like quite a bit and I'm assuming all the mechanical will need to be redone Electrical Plumbing HVAC furnace etc etc period again without seeing it I would recommend you get prices for both too determined you're decision to renovate or rebuild complete. Jeff
Search the TrustedPros directory and discover the best contractors in your area.
Find your home service pro
