Anonymous wrote:Teardown is not cheaper unless you want the new home to be cheap.

Our pop the top price was $300K and our teardown and rebuild price was $500K. We did not have room to go back.

Op - ask a builder to come out an evaluate your foundation - that will tell you a lot about what your options are.

Both seem on the high side (by about 100K) unless you were going high end and redoing everything (popping the top and gutting the house).

Anonymous wrote:Teardown is not cheaper unless you want the new home to be cheap.

Our pop the top price was $300K and our teardown and rebuild price was $500K. We did not have room to go back.

Op - ask a builder to come out an evaluate your foundation - that will tell you a lot about what your options are.

Did that $300k include renovating your entire existing house? New kitchen and baths? Sounds like tearing down would have been a more financially sound investment.

In my Kensington neighborhood I see lots of both. One issue I see with the addition on the back is that the stairs are in the middle and the back addition has step down to it. The stairs divide the house-old and new-and most don't really make good use of the old space, they just live in the new (in the downstairs, the upstairs is much more integrated). The cost to move the stairs is quite high I've heard.

We looked into this and in addition to what other's have mentioned consideration needs to be taken into whether or not if you pop up do you have to increase the sewer line to the road if you have over 4 bathrooms on a pop up - assume this would be the case for a going back. That itself was close to $20K. The price and layout for both ended up not being what we wanted to do - the rambler going up created strange room arrangements and layout because of the stairwells.

Teardown is not cheaper unless you want the new home to be cheap.

Our pop the top price was $300K and our teardown and rebuild price was $500K. We did not have room to go back.

Op - ask a builder to come out an evaluate your foundation - that will tell you a lot about what your options are.

teardown

I added a second floor to a ranch-style house. It was solid brick with a slate roof and could support the weight. I also lived in it while they renovated. When that was done I pushed out the back for a larger kitchen.

If you go back, think about whether you need to dig out the basement or not... if you keep the basement as is you can minimize foundation work while getting the usable space on the first and second floors. We priced out both and pop the top was more than bump out, but we were also interested in raising ceiling heights.

We went back and even then discovered that the existing foundation was insufficient for the existing (small) bump out. The existing foundation was certainly insufficient for a 2nd floor. We did add living space over the garage and that was relatively easy.

Tear-down might actually be cheaper. I've always heard that putting a second floor on a one-story house can be pretty difficult because a lot of them aren't really built sturdily enough for the weight of a full second floor.

Probably depends on the lot size. In my Arlington neighborhood, I see a lot more colonials and capes with rear additions than ranches with new second stories - typically they just tear down the ranches.

I vote neither. Tear down. It would be cheaper.

For houses of about the same initial size, popping the top of the ranch will typically be cheaper, provided the existing foundation can support the new story. Basically this route lets you avoid additional excavation and foundation work which is pricey. In the ranch scenario, you will probably want to reconfigure the entire existing floor and put bedrooms in the new upstairs, and there is no option to live in the house while this work is being done, unless you can move into the basement and tough it out. The colonial option requires new foundation work, but if it is the typical family room addition with new master suite upstairs, you can probably live in the existing house through some or all of the work.

I can't speak to the construction difficulty, but the main difference in practicality might be how deep your yard is. If you have plenty of room in the back, going back in a colonial is fine (and you can typically stay in the house during construction if you want to save $$). If you wouldn't have enough of a setback to get the permit, that would really limit you.

For ranches, you have to make sure that the foundation will support the extra weight, I think.

If you go up you can often add some ceiling height on (some) of the first floor - is this a post war home? Many of them have low ceilings - so that is a consideration too.

Is it easier to pop the top of ranch style home or is it easier to bump out the back of a colonial?