*
I’m in the early planning stages of an addition and remodel. The house is one story with crawl space, approximately 1400 square feet of late 1940’s California ranch.
My question: if I want to add about 1000 square feet, what is the construction cost difference between making it a second story to the existing house and expanding the footprint of the house with more single story? Like my title said, I’m looking for a ballpark, not a detailed breakdown. Are they essentially the same? Is one about 25% more? 50% more? 100% more?
I’m asking because my architect assures me the construction cost is essentially the same for either option. I’m looking for a second opinion from people in the construction business before I commit more money to detailed plans.
Thanks for your help.
Replies
*
Kent:
I don't want to be rude. But, the question you are asking depends so much on local real estate values, local construction costs, local Building Code and Zoning requirements and your specific site that unless you find someone from your neighborhood here you won't get a good answer.
If you don't trust your architect then get someone local to look at the project. Pay them if you expect to get some input that is worth paying attention to. Perhaps a local contractor would be willing to do a cost comparison if you have two sets of concept plans to go from. But, understand that anything anyone tells you unless you have finished, approved plans is just a guess. It may be an educated guess, but it is a guess.
*I'd say about the same. The second floor takes some more work just because it's up there in the air and you can't stand on the ground to sheath, side, trim, etc. But you also don't need a foundation for the second floor.
*Fred, I made the original question one of percentages to try and eliminate the local issues that you point out. My thinking was that even though real estate prices, codes, zoning and sites vary, it would still be possible to answer the question, "Generally speaking, for a given locale is it just as cheap to add a second story as it is to increase a house's footprint?" I do trust my architect when it comes to design, proportion, etc. but construction is not his area of expertise, so I wanted a second opinion before I invest more money on plans that will end up being unreasonable. And I do plan on taking plans to local builders for specific comments. I was really trying to get a feel for which direction, if any was more expensive before I went farther down either road.Thanks for your replies.
*if the existing foundation and structure will take a second floor..and the foundation has room for the utilities to accomadate the second floor...then generally speaking it is cheaper and more efficient to go up instead of out..the savings: foundation, excavation, heat loss, the loss: floor space both floors for the stairwell and connecting halls...no percentage because each case is different....
*Going up would require more stress, since you'd be exposing the rest of the house to the elements for at least a few days; depending on your climate, this may, or may not use up whatever you'd save by not having to deal with ground work and a foundation. And if you are living in the house while all this is going on, going up is gonna seriously disrupt your serenity. An addition out the back could be added without disrupting your life nearly as much. There are a lot of issues that could affect the price of that ground work too. Like accesability, or moving a septic tank, or drainage issues. Of course Mike makes an excellent point when he asks whether the existing structure will support a second floor.All in all, FredB hit the nail on the head. Hire a consultant to give a second opinion. But it seems to me you already got a professional opinion from your architect. Either way, you're gonna be somewhere around 100.00/square ft, just for the basics.
*Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply. Jim's comments about living there while remodeling may turn out to be the deciding factor. I should have been more generous to my architect by saying that he has little expertise in CHARGING for construction, which is why I wanted to ask the experts here.
*General rule is building up costs more than building out.But, slab on grade construction can increase costs.But, the California seismic building code and increase costs for second stories.But, But But.The difference will be negligible, and you have to live in the house, so you decide. Will a 2nd story contribute to the design? Do you like stairs? 2nd stories will generate some noise for those below. Slab on grade is more expensive to make repairs on plumbing and electrical.Lots of factors, no concrete answer.
*I think he said he's on a raised foundation ...I did one of each this year ... even after placing footings and doing an 8" CMU foundation wall, the one that built out was cheaper. Our seismic codes (or engineers) required a lot of steel in that wall, but that's cheap. Same codes got connections w/ hold downs and threaded rods passed between plates to connect the floors together ... yeesh! That stuff takes forever.Right now, in most major metropolitan areas of California, especially seismic zone 4 ... I'd say $135/ft. was a lot closer to reality no matter which way you go. So in a sense your architect is right, if one disregards the cost of demo to the existing roof in order to go up, and other indirect construction costs such as increased dump fees, hauling, furniture moving and/or protection ... most 1940's California foundation footings go down no more than 12", which I've never seen called out on a plan as sufficient for supporting a second floor ... IF your foundation is sufficient and IF your shear can be worked out economically and IF the hold-downs don't need to be added between floors (which means the sill plate would have to be retro-fitted as well, see, because it all needs to transfer to the foundation) ... and IF going up another story gives you a view of the ocean - then by all means do so! Otherwise, if it were me, I'd try to find an aesthetically pleasing way to tack it onto the existing side and rear.Geo.
*Kent,In most situations it would be more costly to go up than out.For starters, the work is a bit more difficult, especially on an inhabitited dwelling. There is more liability in working above.Although many different things contribute to the costs of any project but I would say that it would not be unreasonable to assume it to be anywhere from 10% to 25% more to go up. But like I said, there are a lot of factors involved. In some instances it may be slightly cheaper or nearly equal in cost to go up but generally not. However there are a lot of reasons that going up is better in the long run.The more I type, the more complicated this matter is seeming. At first I figured I could give you a general and simple ballpark idea but the more I type and think, the more that comes to mind. It is so hard to see your place from over here.....Must be all this snow we're getting.Pete Draganic
*George,Thanks for the voice of experience in CA, I'm in the foothills just north of the LA civic center (La Crescenta). I've printed out your reply for future reference.
*"Do you like stairs" is a very good question. Also, how old are you? How long do you plan to live there?When we started planning our house 10 years ago, my wife was only 29 and didn't know that at 35 she'd have arthritis so bad in her hips that climbing stairs would be difficult, eventually impossible. So our 2-story farmhouse became a 1-story (before we built it, that is).
*
I'm in the early planning stages of an addition and remodel. The house is one story with crawl space, approximately 1400 square feet of late 1940's California ranch.
My question: if I want to add about 1000 square feet, what is the construction cost difference between making it a second story to the existing house and expanding the footprint of the house with more single story? Like my title said, I'm looking for a ballpark, not a detailed breakdown. Are they essentially the same? Is one about 25% more? 50% more? 100% more?
I'm asking because my architect assures me the construction cost is essentially the same for either option. I'm looking for a second opinion from people in the construction business before I commit more money to detailed plans.
Thanks for your help.