Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

Firmly middle class, as are the incomes of many Greenbrier residents. Talk to people you know in real life who are middle class/UMC and ask if they care what the outside of their houses look like. By definition, middle class/UMC people have enough money to have options. They’re not going to choose an ugly house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

Firmly middle class, as are the incomes of many Greenbrier residents. Talk to people you know in real life who are middle class/UMC and ask if they care what the outside of their houses look like. By definition, middle class/UMC people have enough money to have options. They’re not going to choose an ugly house.

I suspect you're older and out-of-touch with the realities of the current housing market for buyers. The median household income in 22033 is $135k. With housing prices where they are, middle class buyers can't afford homes without being willing to make tradeoffs. Not doing so drives you further and further out. Current buyers will absolutely accept aesthetic tradeoffs if it means they can buy a larger home, or one closer to work/feeding to the right school.

[Anonymous]

Here's a question for the Greenbriar residents here: have any Ashley homes been renovated to include a full second level? And do you know what it entailed- particularly regarding foundation improvements?

It's obviously a moot point now, but building up the second level, including rebuilding the garage area with a second level, could have given a similar level of usable space. Not as much, but more. And I don't think aesthetics has a much of an impact on prices as others here, I agree it does have an impact.

If the foundation could support it, that might not have been grossly more expensive. Although the garage almost certainly would have still needed strengthening. Spitballing, that's probably still ~50% more cost for less space in the end.

And if you could rebuild the sunroom into a main room, it would have achieved a similar amount of space (but that also probably would have required demo and a new foundation).

That's kind of what one of my coworkers did with a different house, although without the garage rebuild. (He rebuilt his very large sunroom and added a full second level, which more than doubled his effective square footage.) But even though that was done more than a decade ago, it was still much more expensive than this seems to be budgeted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

Firmly middle class, as are the incomes of many Greenbrier residents. Talk to people you know in real life who are middle class/UMC and ask if they care what the outside of their houses look like. By definition, middle class/UMC people have enough money to have options. They’re not going to choose an ugly house.

I suspect you're older and out-of-touch with the realities of the current housing market for buyers. The median household income in 22033 is $135k. With housing prices where they are, middle class buyers can't afford homes without being willing to make tradeoffs. Not doing so drives you further and further out. Current buyers will absolutely accept aesthetic tradeoffs if it means they can buy a larger home, or one closer to work/feeding to the right school.

But if they buy something that doesn’t look the way they like, they change it to be more attractive fairly quickly. They’re not buying houses that are objectively ugly and impossible to improve. A lot of people in that demographic who are middle class/UMC won’t even look at houses that haven’t been fixed up already. Yes, people who are below middle class will look at less attractive houses, but you specified middle class/UMC.

I know a lot of people in this demographic who have bought houses in the last five years and not one has bought an ugly house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

Firmly middle class, as are the incomes of many Greenbrier residents. Talk to people you know in real life who are middle class/UMC and ask if they care what the outside of their houses look like. By definition, middle class/UMC people have enough money to have options. They’re not going to choose an ugly house.

I suspect you're older and out-of-touch with the realities of the current housing market for buyers. The median household income in 22033 is $135k. With housing prices where they are, middle class buyers can't afford homes without being willing to make tradeoffs. Not doing so drives you further and further out. Current buyers will absolutely accept aesthetic tradeoffs if it means they can buy a larger home, or one closer to work/feeding to the right school.

But if they buy something that doesn’t look the way they like, they change it to be more attractive fairly quickly. They’re not buying houses that are objectively ugly and impossible to improve. A lot of people in that demographic who are middle class/UMC won’t even look at houses that haven’t been fixed up already. Yes, people who are below middle class will look at less attractive houses, but you specified middle class/UMC.

I know a lot of people in this demographic who have bought houses in the last five years and not one has bought an ugly house.

No they don't! Middle class buyers today don't have cash left after purchasing a home. They might have vague long-term plans, but they certainly don't do them "fairly quickly" unless they're minor.

I don't think you're really thinking about the middle class. You're probably thinking UMC people with incomes above $250k, and who probably come in with hefty down payments from an earlier house or from the bank of mom/dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for the Greenbriar residents here: have any Ashley homes been renovated to include a full second level? And do you know what it entailed- particularly regarding foundation improvements?

It's obviously a moot point now, but building up the second level, including rebuilding the garage area with a second level, could have given a similar level of usable space. Not as much, but more. And I don't think aesthetics has a much of an impact on prices as others here, I agree it does have an impact.

If the foundation could support it, that might not have been grossly more expensive. Although the garage almost certainly would have still needed strengthening. Spitballing, that's probably still ~50% more cost for less space in the end.

And if you could rebuild the sunroom into a main room, it would have achieved a similar amount of space (but that also probably would have required demo and a new foundation).

That's kind of what one of my coworkers did with a different house, although without the garage rebuild. (He rebuilt his very large sunroom and added a full second level, which more than doubled his effective square footage.) But even though that was done more than a decade ago, it was still much more expensive than this seems to be budgeted for.

If you can’t afford it, don’t build it. Save up until you can.

I live in a neighborhood with similar houses to those in Greenbrier. Many of my neighbors have added to their houses. None of them look completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. And none of these people are rich. Mostly middle class or even LMC, a few who may be UMC. It is entirely possible for a middle class family to build an addition that fits in so well with the neighborhood that you might not know it’s an addition if you don’t already know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for the Greenbriar residents here: have any Ashley homes been renovated to include a full second level? And do you know what it entailed- particularly regarding foundation improvements?

It's obviously a moot point now, but building up the second level, including rebuilding the garage area with a second level, could have given a similar level of usable space. Not as much, but more. And I don't think aesthetics has a much of an impact on prices as others here, I agree it does have an impact.

If the foundation could support it, that might not have been grossly more expensive. Although the garage almost certainly would have still needed strengthening. Spitballing, that's probably still ~50% more cost for less space in the end.

And if you could rebuild the sunroom into a main room, it would have achieved a similar amount of space (but that also probably would have required demo and a new foundation).

That's kind of what one of my coworkers did with a different house, although without the garage rebuild. (He rebuilt his very large sunroom and added a full second level, which more than doubled his effective square footage.) But even though that was done more than a decade ago, it was still much more expensive than this seems to be budgeted for.

Sounds waaaaay more expensive per square foot. These ugly additions are popular not because people think they’re beautiful, but because they add relatively cheap square footage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for the Greenbriar residents here: have any Ashley homes been renovated to include a full second level? And do you know what it entailed- particularly regarding foundation improvements?

It's obviously a moot point now, but building up the second level, including rebuilding the garage area with a second level, could have given a similar level of usable space. Not as much, but more. And I don't think aesthetics has a much of an impact on prices as others here, I agree it does have an impact.

If the foundation could support it, that might not have been grossly more expensive. Although the garage almost certainly would have still needed strengthening. Spitballing, that's probably still ~50% more cost for less space in the end.

And if you could rebuild the sunroom into a main room, it would have achieved a similar amount of space (but that also probably would have required demo and a new foundation).

That's kind of what one of my coworkers did with a different house, although without the garage rebuild. (He rebuilt his very large sunroom and added a full second level, which more than doubled his effective square footage.) But even though that was done more than a decade ago, it was still much more expensive than this seems to be budgeted for.

If you can’t afford it, don’t build it. Save up until you can.

I live in a neighborhood with similar houses to those in Greenbrier. Many of my neighbors have added to their houses. None of them look completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. And none of these people are rich. Mostly middle class or even LMC, a few who may be UMC. It is entirely possible for a middle class family to build an addition that fits in so well with the neighborhood that you might not know it’s an addition if you don’t already know.

You should design it for Mike. Same cost per square foot addition. I’d like to see that too, mainly because I’m pretty damn sure it doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

Firmly middle class, as are the incomes of many Greenbrier residents. Talk to people you know in real life who are middle class/UMC and ask if they care what the outside of their houses look like. By definition, middle class/UMC people have enough money to have options. They’re not going to choose an ugly house.

No. That’s not how it works in this home buying market in this area. Regular middle class people are largely shut out of single-family homeownership if they’re looking to buy now. If they are able to buy something, they’re surely not buying a beauty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

What's your HHI?

Firmly middle class, as are the incomes of many Greenbrier residents. Talk to people you know in real life who are middle class/UMC and ask if they care what the outside of their houses look like. By definition, middle class/UMC people have enough money to have options. They’re not going to choose an ugly house.

I suspect you're older and out-of-touch with the realities of the current housing market for buyers. The median household income in 22033 is $135k. With housing prices where they are, middle class buyers can't afford homes without being willing to make tradeoffs. Not doing so drives you further and further out. Current buyers will absolutely accept aesthetic tradeoffs if it means they can buy a larger home, or one closer to work/feeding to the right school.

But if they buy something that doesn’t look the way they like, they change it to be more attractive fairly quickly. They’re not buying houses that are objectively ugly and impossible to improve. A lot of people in that demographic who are middle class/UMC won’t even look at houses that haven’t been fixed up already. Yes, people who are below middle class will look at less attractive houses, but you specified middle class/UMC.

I know a lot of people in this demographic who have bought houses in the last five years and not one has bought an ugly house.

No they don't! Middle class buyers today don't have cash left after purchasing a home. They might have vague long-term plans, but they certainly don't do them "fairly quickly" unless they're minor.

I don't think you're really thinking about the middle class. You're probably thinking UMC people with incomes above $250k, and who probably come in with hefty down payments from an earlier house or from the bank of mom/dad.

No, I know these people are middle class. And I know a lot of their parents, also middle class who don’t have tens of thousands to throw around for deposits on their kids’ houses. That would be people who are rich who can afford to do that, not middle class people who have already paid for college for their kids.

And yes, they make the outside look better if needed with elbow grease- paint, plantings. Their friends pitch in and help each other.

But none of them bought an outright ugly house with no potential to look better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for the Greenbriar residents here: have any Ashley homes been renovated to include a full second level? And do you know what it entailed- particularly regarding foundation improvements?

It's obviously a moot point now, but building up the second level, including rebuilding the garage area with a second level, could have given a similar level of usable space. Not as much, but more. And I don't think aesthetics has a much of an impact on prices as others here, I agree it does have an impact.

If the foundation could support it, that might not have been grossly more expensive. Although the garage almost certainly would have still needed strengthening. Spitballing, that's probably still ~50% more cost for less space in the end.

And if you could rebuild the sunroom into a main room, it would have achieved a similar amount of space (but that also probably would have required demo and a new foundation).

That's kind of what one of my coworkers did with a different house, although without the garage rebuild. (He rebuilt his very large sunroom and added a full second level, which more than doubled his effective square footage.) But even though that was done more than a decade ago, it was still much more expensive than this seems to be budgeted for.

If you can’t afford it, don’t build it. Save up until you can.

I live in a neighborhood with similar houses to those in Greenbrier. Many of my neighbors have added to their houses. None of them look completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. And none of these people are rich. Mostly middle class or even LMC, a few who may be UMC. It is entirely possible for a middle class family to build an addition that fits in so well with the neighborhood that you might not know it’s an addition if you don’t already know.

You should design it for Mike. Same cost per square foot addition. I’d like to see that too, mainly because I’m pretty damn sure it doesn’t exist.

I am not an architect and I know better than to think that I am capable of creating a safe and sturdy addition to a house. I’m sure if these owners had talked to an actual architect, they could have had a plan put together. And they could have avoided a lot of the actions, or lack thereof, that got them to the point where they are now.

And if they couldn’t afford it right now, then save up for another year or two. They had a 2400 sf house that would have been perfectly comfortable for a year or two longer. There are four adults and two young children living in this house, so lots of room.

And I can only imagine how uncomfortable the house must be now, with part of it gone and a large part a construction site. This all could have been avoided by just waiting a little longer and doing it correctly instead of cheaply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Surely you knew there wasn't an HOA when you bought the home.

Yes, we knew there was no HOA. And?

Then you knew you couldn't control what other people would build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a question for the Greenbriar residents here: have any Ashley homes been renovated to include a full second level? And do you know what it entailed- particularly regarding foundation improvements?

It's obviously a moot point now, but building up the second level, including rebuilding the garage area with a second level, could have given a similar level of usable space. Not as much, but more. And I don't think aesthetics has a much of an impact on prices as others here, I agree it does have an impact.

If the foundation could support it, that might not have been grossly more expensive. Although the garage almost certainly would have still needed strengthening. Spitballing, that's probably still ~50% more cost for less space in the end.

And if you could rebuild the sunroom into a main room, it would have achieved a similar amount of space (but that also probably would have required demo and a new foundation).

That's kind of what one of my coworkers did with a different house, although without the garage rebuild. (He rebuilt his very large sunroom and added a full second level, which more than doubled his effective square footage.) But even though that was done more than a decade ago, it was still much more expensive than this seems to be budgeted for.

If you can’t afford it, don’t build it. Save up until you can.

I live in a neighborhood with similar houses to those in Greenbrier. Many of my neighbors have added to their houses. None of them look completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. And none of these people are rich. Mostly middle class or even LMC, a few who may be UMC. It is entirely possible for a middle class family to build an addition that fits in so well with the neighborhood that you might not know it’s an addition if you don’t already know.

You should design it for Mike. Same cost per square foot addition. I’d like to see that too, mainly because I’m pretty damn sure it doesn’t exist.

I am not an architect and I know better than to think that I am capable of creating a safe and sturdy addition to a house. I’m sure if these owners had talked to an actual architect, they could have had a plan put together. And they could have avoided a lot of the actions, or lack thereof, that got them to the point where they are now.

And if they couldn’t afford it right now, then save up for another year or two. They had a 2400 sf house that would have been perfectly comfortable for a year or two longer. There are four adults and two young children living in this house, so lots of room.

And I can only imagine how uncomfortable the house must be now, with part of it gone and a large part a construction site. This all could have been avoided by just waiting a little longer and doing it correctly instead of cheaply.

Why should they spend extra money and delay an addition so their neighbors will be more aesthetically satisfied?