Which makes the most sense?

[Anonymous]

We own a house that we currently rent out and plan to move into in 2-3 years when we return to the area. In the master bath, there are several tiles in one area that have cracked. Two contractors have provided estimates for repair. The first estimate is to redo the entire floor - new sub floor and tile for about $1100. The second estimate is to repair just the area with cracked tiles for about $500 (although this contractor also feels the entire floor should is in need of repair). We are hesitating to spend $1100 for repair because we plan to renovate the bathroom when we return to the house in 2-3 years (possibly to remove a tub and make an existing shower bigger). For this reason, it seems to make sense to spend the least amount of money. I've asked the second contractor to confirm the cheaper repair will be good enough for 2-3 years. Am I missing anything? Is the cheaper repair the best option?

TIA

[Anonymous]

no, you're not missing anything, the cheaper repair makes the most sense

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me like the $500 estimate is overboard, especially for replacing a few tiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds to me like the $500 estimate is overboard, especially for replacing a few tiles.

This is what we think, too. We are thinking of asking the first contractor for an estimate for the smaller section, too. Both contractors seem to indicate the sub floor needs to be replaced, so maybe this is why the estimate sounds high. The second contractor's quote is for a 7-9 sq foot section, but it is unclear if he will also replace the sub floor (his comments to the property management company say it should be replaced, but it is not specified in the quote); I've asked for clarification.

[Anonymous]

If the sub floor is rotted, it needs to be replaced before it causes more damage on whatever is below the bathroom.