Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB
By the time you get through working around the existing building the old building offered several challenges that a clean slate (empty lot) would not have.
The architect had to make plans that would incorporate the old building and change everything from the structural support to every segment of the entire layout because of that building. It is different from what a regular new construction design would have required. That additional design time costs money.
Hazardous materials would have to be removed from the old building. That would include any asbestos and any oil that may have leaked from old vehicles in the building. None of the old wiring could be used because it was out of code. The old building had to be completely rewired. The old brick had to be re-pointed and stabilized so that it did not present a hazard in the new building. Any old wood in the building had to be treated for termites and other issues and that will be an ongoing expense.
HVAC plumbing required numerous re-channeling efforts to get around the blockage cause by the old building. That eliminated the opportunity for straight runs typical of most new construction. It also required that additional utility outlets for lighting, heating, and air conditioning be installed so that it would cover and circulate throughout the structure. The old building could only be improved so much and will continue to be an additional expense for years to come.
I will take a clean slate any day. It will cost less and you can design what you want without restriction.
|
All good points except the hazzardous material. It would have to be removed whether the building is demolished or used as an alteration. Since they used the existing wall system and foundation I still stand by that there was probably no additional cost to use the structure. However I do understand and agree that the contractor would rather deal with a clean slate.