Hello,
to explain my question, I need to provide some background.
We live on a 600sqm (6458 sq ft) plot of land, with a settlement house from the 1950s that has 140sqm (1507 sq ft) of living space (the upper floor is empty, and we use the ground floor for storage and as a hobby area). Additionally, there is an extension attached to the settlement house, measuring 150sqm (1615 sq ft) (18 meters long and 5 meters wide (59 feet long and 16 feet wide), with two stories). We live in this extension with our two children. Both buildings are directly connected on the ground floor.
The extension dates from 1970 and is in excellent condition. We completely renovated it. It is connected to the heating system of the settlement house (an oil condensing boiler from 2010).
Now, due to the layout of the extension (long and narrow), we have three bedrooms, but one is only 9sqm (97 sq ft), and the other two are each 16sqm (172 sq ft), and there is no second bathroom. Therefore, we want to move the master bedroom with a walk-in closet into the settlement house.
However, if we want to use the settlement house for living purposes, several things need to be done:
1. The roof is from the 1950s and is uninsulated.
2. The facade is made of 30cm (12 inches) pumice stone and needs insulation.
3. The ceilings are creaky wooden beam ceilings and need some attention.
4. The electrical and water installations need to be renewed.
5. A new front door is required.
Now I am wondering if it might make more sense to demolish the settlement house and build a new house on top of the existing basement, which protrudes 80cm (31 inches) above ground level. The new house would have the same dimensions as the current one. I would design the new house with only one bedroom, a walk-in closet, and a bathroom. The rest would remain unfinished and unused until one of the children is old enough.
What do you think? Is it financially better to renovate or to build a new house?
Best regards from Untermain,
Linus
to explain my question, I need to provide some background.
We live on a 600sqm (6458 sq ft) plot of land, with a settlement house from the 1950s that has 140sqm (1507 sq ft) of living space (the upper floor is empty, and we use the ground floor for storage and as a hobby area). Additionally, there is an extension attached to the settlement house, measuring 150sqm (1615 sq ft) (18 meters long and 5 meters wide (59 feet long and 16 feet wide), with two stories). We live in this extension with our two children. Both buildings are directly connected on the ground floor.
The extension dates from 1970 and is in excellent condition. We completely renovated it. It is connected to the heating system of the settlement house (an oil condensing boiler from 2010).
Now, due to the layout of the extension (long and narrow), we have three bedrooms, but one is only 9sqm (97 sq ft), and the other two are each 16sqm (172 sq ft), and there is no second bathroom. Therefore, we want to move the master bedroom with a walk-in closet into the settlement house.
However, if we want to use the settlement house for living purposes, several things need to be done:
1. The roof is from the 1950s and is uninsulated.
2. The facade is made of 30cm (12 inches) pumice stone and needs insulation.
3. The ceilings are creaky wooden beam ceilings and need some attention.
4. The electrical and water installations need to be renewed.
5. A new front door is required.
Now I am wondering if it might make more sense to demolish the settlement house and build a new house on top of the existing basement, which protrudes 80cm (31 inches) above ground level. The new house would have the same dimensions as the current one. I would design the new house with only one bedroom, a walk-in closet, and a bathroom. The rest would remain unfinished and unused until one of the children is old enough.
What do you think? Is it financially better to renovate or to build a new house?
Best regards from Untermain,
Linus
This is your “first” post here, but it still feels to me as if I have read this scenario (last year?) somewhere before in this or another homebuilding forum (?)
From this I understand: the heights resulting from redeveloping the existing basement would be suitable for you; and technically the basement connection would not need to be changed.
Your question is therefore actually—unlike the usual concern of whether the basement is still usable—the consideration only of the above-ground floors of the settlement house, whether it is better to renovate or rebuild.
If the basement is indeed “still in good condition”—not just “good enough to be a heating cellar”—then I would lean towards rebuilding.
However, if the use changes only from “first floor is empty, ground floor is storage and hobby space” to “ground floor would be used more spaciously for sleeping and bathing, first floor would be storage and hobby space,” there is a significant question mark over economic efficiency.
Under these circumstances, an energy retrofit limited to the ground floor (with the upper floor as an attic and insulated ceiling as boundary) seems possible to me, and I wonder how much of the creaking floorboards from the upper floor you would actually have to tolerate in the bedroom and bathroom.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
anlianli schrieb:
Both houses are directly connected on the ground floor. [...] the heating system in the settlement house (oil condensing boiler from 2010).
From this I understand: the heights resulting from redeveloping the existing basement would be suitable for you; and technically the basement connection would not need to be changed.
Your question is therefore actually—unlike the usual concern of whether the basement is still usable—the consideration only of the above-ground floors of the settlement house, whether it is better to renovate or rebuild.
If the basement is indeed “still in good condition”—not just “good enough to be a heating cellar”—then I would lean towards rebuilding.
However, if the use changes only from “first floor is empty, ground floor is storage and hobby space” to “ground floor would be used more spaciously for sleeping and bathing, first floor would be storage and hobby space,” there is a significant question mark over economic efficiency.
Under these circumstances, an energy retrofit limited to the ground floor (with the upper floor as an attic and insulated ceiling as boundary) seems possible to me, and I wonder how much of the creaking floorboards from the upper floor you would actually have to tolerate in the bedroom and bathroom.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Actually, I am also considering this option. So far, I have done all the manual work myself. I am a trained carpenter and now work in an office, so I like to do physical work in my free time. I have done the electrical work, plastering, tiling, and other renovation tasks on my own. Therefore, I am not sure in the long run which will be more cost-effective for me: renovating the house or having a shell structure built and then gradually finishing it.
anlianli schrieb:
The basement is purely a boiler room I didn’t mean whether it’s a utility or living basement. What I meant is that when a room is used as a heating and utility room, for example, minor structural defects are usually not a big concern; if it’s used for food storage, you pay more attention; and a living basement has the highest standards.
anlianli schrieb:
If I were to build new, I would want to keep these windows. Yes, when removing them, usually only the reveals are damaged; the windows themselves can often be taken out without damage. You could pay attention to matching the opening dimensions.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics