Gutting vs. facelifting a century-old home
Hi there, my wife an I are contemplating a housing upgrade in Toronto. A couple of the neighbourhoods we like are full of old brick Victorian homes, mostly built during the years of 1880-1910.
I love these houses, and believe that they carry a lot of heritage value, however they come with a lot of baggage as well – knob and tube wiring, asbestos-wrapped plumbing and HVAC, brick foundations in a cold climate (zone 5/6), possible history of termite activity (somewhat rare but possible in Toronto), lack of insulation, rodent/insect infestation, mold issues, uneven floors, shoddy patchwork renovations through the decades, etc… Since buying one that’s had a complete and responsible renovation is possibly out of the budget, I’ve considered the possibility of doing a gut-renovation or just a “major facelift”, which I would characterise as new roof, new siding on any non-brick exterior walls, new windows, new attic insulation, new plumbing and electrical, new floors, and new kitchen and bathrooms (obviously omitting anything that’s already been done to reasonable standard). Basically it would be similar to a gut-renovation in scope, just attempting to salvage as much of the original plaster and trim as possible. I’m wondering if there is a real savings to be had by saving the plaster and trimwork (other than their obvious historic value), or if the savings are outweighed by the convenience of a gut-renovation?
After typing that all out I suspect a “to-the-studs” renovation is really the way to go if one is contemplating this level of update, but I’m open to suggestions otherwise.
Thanks!
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Tim,
I know several couples in the greater Toronto area who have taken of restoration of those beautiful old houses, and have been mired in the process for decades. Salvaging the historical elements is perhaps the right thing to do, but practically it is a nightmare.
Whichever way you decide to go, I'd urge y0u to get a good estimate as to what it will all cost - and stick to a budget. Unfortunately both of your contemplated options aren't cheap. I hope this doesn't sound too discouraging, it's just that It's important to go into this with your eyes open.
It is very difficult to salvage a lot of this stuff, and there is a high likelihood of damage while you’re trying to remove things. To upgrade the electrical and plumbing you’re going to have to open the walls in so many places you might as well just open everything. It’s possible to fish the wiring in and limit how much wall area you have to open, but there is a LOT more labor involved with running wiring that way.
I would try a bit of both. Salvage the easiest stuff, trim details (molding/casing, rosettes, doors and hardware, hardwood floors where you can). This is the easiest stuff to salvage, and is also a lot of the historical character of the building. Don’t try to save any of the plaster. If you really want to, it’s entirely possible to put up new wet plaster walls. Not cheap though.
Bill
Tim,
The answer to your question really depends on how much of the work you are doing. Generally, it will be cheaper to buy a renovated house than it is to pay someone to renovate an existing one, especially when it comes to updating a century home.
In terms of salvaging original details, it is very much house dependent. Some items are easy to keep and restore, some are very expensive. For example, with my 1920's arts and crafts brick with all the lovely features you mentioned (knob and tube, asbestos, galvanized water pipes), I managed to keep the ceilings and walls intact by pulling up the subfloor to run the new utilities.
Generally anything that needs to be touched, it is easier to remove and rebuild than to salvage. For example, I managed to salvage about 3/4 of the original window trim but it was way more work than getting and staining new trim to match the original.
As Malcom warned, it is easy to get mired up in the endless reno, make sure anything you take on is well scoped and don't let the project creep.
In cold climates in particular, insulating and air sealing from the interior for mass brick walls is tricky and difficult. Making this brick colder and wetter is the main problem.
For starters, consider this Insight from Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corp.
https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insights/bsi-105-avoiding-mass-failures
Peter
Please note that every part of this house is undoubtedly covered in lead based paint. If you have children and plan on living in the home while it is being remodeled, I say heck no.
If you leave any part undisturbed you would want to disclose that info when you sell the house.
If you choose to reinstall any original parts you will spend you will spend large amounts of time and or money removing the old paint.
If you take on this project, do so with the understanding it is a labor of love and it will not be a money making investment should you put any value on your time. When you open the walls there will be surprises most of them will not be pleasant. Every house you see will need major repairs because the flippers will have bought up all the homes that just need a coat of paint and a new kitchen and bath.
Walta
Thanks for the replies! The overall tone is pretty clear, haha... One potential issue that I didn’t mention is the large amount of potential rotting timber, be it roof trim, floor joists, window frames, etc...
Peter, I’ve read a fair bit on this site about downsides of insulating brick walls, including your link. I think my approach would be to find something that is holding up well and work on flashing/water management, insulating the roof and air sealing, while keeping exterior wall insulation to a minimum.
I was a bit surprised by the notion from Akos that it is generally cheaper to buy a renovated house than to buy and renovate. Certainly HGTV would have us believe that the buy-and-renovate route is cheaper, but perhaps that is due to their projects sticking to mostly cosmetic upgrades and not much in the way of mechanical or structural updates. That brings me to the point that I suppose every house is different. Perhaps a house that has been gutted and properly brought up to code 20 years ago, and just needs to be “freshened up” a little, is more in line with something I could tackle. My plan would be to act as general contractor, perhaps taking on a few minor projects (some demo, bathroom tile, etc...) myself. The aim would be to complete the renovation inside 6 months, before moving in.
The lead paint issue is a good point as well. I do have a young son, so that is definitely a concern.
Lastly, there are (rarely) houses that are quite original, but have aged quite well. Does anyone have comments on their comfort level with living in a house with 130 year-old radiators and plumbing, perhaps a mashup of some new wiring and old that was too difficult to access, undisturbed asbestos and lead paint behind the current coat? Those things all bother me, but wondering if I’m being silly?
Thanks!
A brief google seems to yield lots of articles about the relationship between the cost of a renovation and the increase in value of a home. Here's one example: https://www.remodeling.hw.net/benchmarks/cost-vs-value/key-trends-in-the-2019-cost-vs-value-report_o
These articles are pretty consistent in that renovations rarely add more value to the home than they cost.
If renovations aren't typically a money-maker, then, conversely, doing the renovations yourself isn't typically going to be a big money-saver, except for the sweat-equity you put into the project yourself.
Down to the studs renovations are major projects full of surprises and unexpected challenges. If you're going to tackle that sort of project, both your budget and your timeline will need to be pretty flexible. Malcom's advice to get estimates before sinking a bunch of money into a property is critical!
There are of course always exceptions, but looking for a house that only needs to be "freshened up" is certainly the more conservative approach.
Tim,
The people at HGTV should be (as Monty Python so aptly put it) shot in front of the children. Almost as much as the condition of the existing house, the success of a deep renovation depends to an enormous amount on the personality of the owner. Hitting that sweet spot between being OCD and fixing everything, and knowing when things are good enough, defines whether the process will yield the result that you hope for.
If it is your lifelong dream I say go for it. I Promise you it will be an experience.
I have yet to see one of the TV shows where they claimed to have lost money. Generally the end value given is not a free market price from a sale but rather a number made up that adds to the shows drama.
With children I see any original interior detail as a liability.
If you decide to buy one that is already done, I say avoid the flip houses. Look for one owner has lived in for a few years.
Walta
Walta, at least in the case of “flip or flop”, they have actually said that they only show on the show those projects that make money. Money losers are not shown, but do exist.
The other thing to remember is that they aren’t paying regular homeowner rates to those contractors. They are essentially acting as their own general contractors, and they’re getting good rates because of the volume of buisness they send out to their group of cotractors. A typical homeowner only does the occasional project or two every few years, if that, and not the constant project after project all year, every year, that a commerical renovation buisness does.
No one should be making budgetary decisions based on home improvement shows. Think of those shows as examples, get style ideas from them, but bid out your projects on your own before you decide how much something should cost.
Bill
Great food for thought here. I’m definitely being steered toward the very “conservative approach” with great caution regarding historic interiors.
If you buy an old house, you should be happy living in an old house. I would rather build new than try to turn an old house into a new house. Less work and less money. I have seen people ignore that fact, and in turn have it destroy their family. It's just a house, not a source of happiness.
I would much rather live in a modern well insulated & air tight house than an old house in a cold climate.
Crazy idea here, but if you really want to have the modern comforts and conveniences while having the style and aesthetics of an old home, why not hire an architect and builder to build a new home in the old style? It is possible.
Toronto is a mix of old established districts where you would have to knock something expensive down to build new, and suburban developments that don't really offer an urban lifestyle. Unfortunately, the choice is more between how you want to live than in what type of house.
This is true. Toronto has become a city where lots with even a “tear down” house on them are priced well out of most people’s budgets. My wife’s financial advisor steered us toward the “facelift” idea because apparently most banks won’t allow you to tear down or even gut a home that has a mortgage on it. So even if we felt we could carry the costs of a tear-down/rebuild, we likely couldn’t get finacing for it.
There is the odd contemporary new build that comes along downtown, and occasional nicely-done gut-jobs that have been lived in, and one of those options may be what we end up doing, IF we move at all.