Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We were flooded in October and our house is getting new....everything.
It's down to the studs, but will need a new roof, new siding, insulation, walls, floors...thinking -maybe we can do this. The cost seems to be the same either way.
Days after the storm, we were in a state of shock -and signed a Contract with a GC for nearly 80 grand to "fix" the house.
We have not been hit with a storm here yet other than tremendous drop in housing prices. People are snatching up oceanfront property here and and I am seeing some tear the homes all the way down to rough framing and then begin their renovation, expansion projects.
Here in our area it is better I believe to rebuild existing than try to meet the new codes, which include height, width requirements and many other nightmares. I believe by maintaining some of the original building you are somewhat grandfathered in.
Here in the ATL it happens quite often. One big benefit in the permitting process/rules is-
By leaving part of the original foundation (regardless of how it will be used in the new design) it's considered a remodel.
Not only is the permit a lot cheaper, it also allows a lot of altitude as far as size and height restrictions (think McMansion in a 60y/o urban neighborhood).
Your particular case is basically just a cosmetic rebuild/repair (even though it's the entire house).
permit wise, the town is waiving fee's from this particular storm until march.
i have had 3 different engineer's look at my foundation.
1st - just bend down and glanced through opening's in the floor - told us the house won't fall down, and to sister the boards, rebuild some piers, and we'd be good to go.
2nd. said there were foundation cracks, and piers/ pillars were knocked down - since she knew how much to repair the whole house, she said knock it down ( as opposed to lifting/ raising).
3rd came from the insurance company to check the findings of 2nd engineer. he said the foundation needed repairs, needed new piers, but otherwise was good. he said i should call a mason to come fix the cracks. granted, he's got a biased opinion, but then i think, wouldn't it be in the insurance company's best interest not to re-build on a compromised foundation?
now that we're looking into modular homes, we're even more interested in finding out if we can indeed keep our existing foundation, because as you both said, it would save us a lot of money - and we need to do that since we paid this GC $40k in "repairs" on a house we're knocking down.
a mess, but trying to learn as much as i can so we move forward with little to no mistakes again.
So, from your site inspections you go from one end of the spectrum to the other!
That's quite extraordinary- usually engineers will be somewhat on the same page. Of course you have to remember, they're putting their reputation/license on the line so they generally tend to lean toward a conservative resolution.
In that case, I'd probably start all over. The other issue is time/money management- in the long run it maybe actually cheaper to start anew. It least you'll have the benefit of the latest technology/materials and you may want to incorporate some other features that could save you from future damage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
