2nd floor addition in conservation area - Sydney lower north shore

Lots of conservation area houses in the lower north shore around Artarmon / Chatswood / Roseville - many of these undergo a massive 2nd storey addition and extension toward the back, as well as a rejuvenation of the front (paint, replace old timber features, maybe even cement render entire brickwork).

How much would such a renovation, typically, cost?

I know it's a difficult question to answer, depends on a lot of things, but really just after an empirical range answer. Alternatively I'm asking 'what do people typically spend on such a renovation?' 500k? 1.2m? I know it's probably between these two haha...

E.g. to start with - 3br single storey double brick, original condition everything. To finish - extension upward (2nd storey added) and towards rear, new roof so there's no difference in tiles, cement render all bricks so can't see new/old mismatched bricks, new bath, new kitchen, new floors throughout (e.g. tile downstairs, floorboards upstairs), repaint. Exclude landscaping.

Just after an estimate, or if you've done it yourself or know someone who has, actuals would be great. It would help me work out how much I'd like to pay for these types of properties. Thanks

 

You can search the development applications on the council website and they have an estimated cost (for what that is worth). Pretty much everywhere is a "conservation" area though

 

Have done this extensively and have come to the conclusion those figures are almost certainly always under-reported to save the owner on taxes / levies etc.

 

My wife is project managing a site in Gordon which is an extension in the back and its cost around $3,500 per sqm which is on par with new construction. Im personally not a big fan of extensions.

Any reason why you can't move a little up to the north shore?

 

Why would you want to live THAT far from the city?

 

haha... no reason other than... emotional, irrational reasons

 

So I spoke to several builders and got rough ballpark quotes ranging from: 400k, 700k, 1m-1.5m.

Now for context, the 1m+ guy's previous clients are all pretty much lower north shore in 3m homes, whereas the other two work all over sydney, so I'm not sure if this is a relevant factor - maybe people up there are accustomed to a certain profit margin and price level?

I asked the 1m guy as politely as possible to help me understand the reasons why he thinks it would cost 1m+ whereas some other builders reckon 400-700k and didn't get a clear answer, other than generally (paraphrasing) "when you add a new storey to an old home, the old parts must also be redone such that the entire house looks consistent and whole" which was, I believe, fully communicated and understood in great detail by the other two builders when I described what I wanted to achieve.

I don't know what to make of this. I'll be visiting the cheaper builders' finished client sites as well as their own home which they built so I can closely assess their attention to detail, but really, I'm still at a complete loss where the extra 500k goes, if I were to hire one of those lower north shore guys. Is it all profit margin? Can't be, right? Please help me understand what that 1m guy's clients are paying for.

 

Are you 100% sure that the cheaper guys were including the exact same finishes?

Did you ask for a price based on construction level plans/finishes. If not, then it’s hard to know the true cost.

It is really common for builders to provide a cheaper quote and then the amount balloons following variations by the client for things that could probably have been foreseen. But stripping them out initially makes the quote seem cheaper.

The expensive builder might be including a level of finish that the cheaper builders aren’t.

Or, he just might not want the work!

 

Unless there's something of particular significance eg boundary setbacks that cannotor protected facade etc why don't you consider a knockdown and rebuild?

 

This particular one is within a conservation area.

I did specify a rather average level of finish, nothing spectacular, I was careful to convey that high level finishes (80mm granite waterfall benchtops, natural stone tiles etc) are not my thing, and that the focus was on the bones / exterior.

 

I live in such an area and have actually done this with our house around 10 years ago. It is impossible to answer your question as it really depends on what you wish to achieve?
Some do this and then sell at a profit and move on... some like us who downsized decided this is where will retire to...
So the purpose of what you wish to achieve would be your guide what you wish to add value to and where to spend, hence really impossible to answer.
The better option would be to know whether you wish to do a cosmetic renovation or structural one or both?
Roughly we spent around 24% of purchase value, but that was a lot of emotional decisions, my likes as opposed what is right for the area, a bit structural mostly cosmetic and pool and landscaping...We have now decided perhaps we should do the front outside area, DA for the front external reno to change driveway, carport, front windows, render. In addition to DA we needed two additional reports bush fire and tree (natives) reports, so alone the cost before we even started came already to around $12K. We live in conservation area but not a heritage house though....
BUT the neighbours next door who purchased two years ago are still waiting for approval....already had 24 objections (some from people who use the public walkway next to them and don't even live next door, yes!), had to erect a scaffolding with a camera to video tape the sun aspects as the neighbours below don't like that they are extending their footprint....
Just don't forget that in these areas it is not just the cost but the time-frame that may prolong your project so if necessary you will need to add holding costs too or solutions to encompass the native trees, etc.... The conservation area has meetings and they decide too and the weirdest thing is that some of them don't even live in this area!).
Not trying to discourage you just to make you realise the process is more costly and much slower, we waited around 2.5 years before we had approval and that was 10 years ago!
Other option is to talk to some that are renovating or improving, many in our street at the moment, but again impossible to answer as some are owner builders and some outsource all the work.

 

Thanks MWI really helpful. I think 25% of purchase price on a big reno is very reasonable and is pretty much around 600k which is in line with the middle of my quotes - and I specified to exclude landscaping, so I have that going for me. In terms of what I want to achieve, really just extra living space to raise a family of four - 2 adults 2 kids - that's why I'm not big about fancy finishes, no need for carrera marble feature walls, natural stone tiles, branded italian wool curtains, fancy wood species floorboards etc - just give me my 40mm caesarstone on ikea spec polyurethane cabinets with chipboard carcasses, chinese porcelain tile floor and bathroom, caroma everything etc - modest but functional is what I like. No chandeliers. The premium builders up there scare me.

 

Not to scare you but these DCP controls are for a job in Artarmon I have at the moment, even if you get all your setbacks etc right, then there are these which can be interpreted differently by council.....

1. D.1.4 Character, Design, Streetscape and View Sharing

D1.4.1 - Objectives

1. To ensure that new development is consistent with the scale of, and complements the desired future character of the streetscape.

2. To preserve and enhance the features which contribute to the important environmental and landscape qualities of the area.

3.To encourage the sharing of views, while not restricting the reasonable development potential of the site.

4.To ensure that development contributes to the creation of an attractive residential environment and residential amenity.

5.To encourage good environmental and architectural design.


D.1.4.2 - Performance Criteria



1. Contemporary building styles are encouraged provided they respect the streetscape in terms of building siting, massing and scale, window proportions, building materials and roof pitch.

2. Buildings should be designed to minimise overshadowing, overlooking and visual impact of the development on the street and adjacent properties by:

1. progressively increasing setbacks as wall heights increase and providing articulation of walls;

2. siting the building relative to the topography of the land with minimal cut and fill;

3. breaking up the roof into smaller elements;

4. breaking up the front façade elements to match the proportions (particularly wall surfaces and window dimensions) of surrounding dwellings; an

5. avoiding double garages dominating the front elevation.


3. New development must have regard to:

1. the surrounding roof forms and pitch;

2. the treatment of facades of surrounding dwellings, their use of verandahs, balconies and windows;

3. the detail, proportions and scale of elements;

4. the use of materials, colours and finishes;

5. maintaining the landscape setting and the retention of existing trees on the site;

6. the location and the extent of car parking structures and driveways on the site;

7. the height and type of fencing to the street; and

8. the sharing of views

4. The use of colour should be sensitive to the surroundings and the character of the area, in particular when viewed from the street, waterways or public open spaces.

5. Design of the building should attempt to break up long lines of walls and bulky or unrelieved facades by:

1. using architectural relief, such as soldier brick courses or corbelling, modulation of wall planes by stepping or staggering, or wall surface treatment such as painted rendering and fenestration;

2. the introduction of horizontal elements such as pergolas or awnings; and

3. the use of landscaping.

6. In areas of established streetscapes with consistent architectural style, new infill dwellings should reinforce the existing streetscape character and the elements which contribute to this character, such as the roof forms, ridge and eaves height, external colours and building materials.

7. Dwelling design should address the street and incorporate a visible and readily identifiable entry point.

8. On corner allotments, the facades and frontage treatments should be designed to address both streets and to create visual interest within both streets using windows, landscaping elements, awnings or other treatment to wall surfaces.

9. The external architectural treatment and building materials of both dwellings in an attached dual occupancy development should be integrated in terms of design and building form, especially in relation to roof pitch, form and materials and facade finishes. Minor variation to promote individual identity is encouraged.

10. Provision must be made for landscaping within the front setback to compliment landscape features of the street and to integrate the new development into the street.

Large expanses of hard surfaces should be avoided (eg. concrete driveways) and softened by the use of landscaping.

11. Provision should be made for planting of trees and consideration should be given to the nature, age, height and canopy spread in the design process.

12. Development design should have regard to and address areas such as reserves, walkways, foreshores etc so as to provide a positive contribution to the public domain particularly in terms of maintaining or creating vistas between or over buildings or maintaining or improving the amenity of the public domain.

13. Large open undercroft spaces beneath buildings, concrete decks or swimming pools, should not be visible from public areas such as reserves, roads, pedestrian pathways or waterways. This control can be achieved by:

1. integrating the building into the topography of the site; or

2. dense tree and shrub screen planting; or

3. stepped, landscaped retaining walls up to 1m in height.

14. Development should retain and protect the existing qualities of the natural landscape, particularly on sites adjoining bushland and public reserves and on ridgetop locations and sloping sites, by retaining significant trees and landscape features.

15. The orientation and siting of new dwellings as well as alterations and additions to existing dwellings should protect significant views enjoyed by surrounding properties and public spaces and where it is possible, design for the sharing of views.

 

Just be careful with finishes as there is certain expectation with properties over certain value and people here realize that.
Let's say on $3-$4M house I personally would not install IKEA cupboards, we actually went with over the board finishes for kitchen, bathrooms, other rooms, flooring, custom built-ins and joinery, window furnishings, materials....such as wood, travertine pavers, granite tiles, chandeliers, etc....BUT remember it was an emotional decision what I wanted for my house to live in and my personal choice!
Also, we did not outsource we hired directly all the labour and ran the project ourselves, which too saves on costs.
I agree certain builders have unlimited budget expectations from some of us here but not all, the key is to know ALL the finishes and the details up front then spend many hours with the actual builder going through that process so you realize where the variations can come from but that unfortunately comes with experience and what both parties are willing to spend on time wise... on the due diligence process.
For example most people would not realize that a standard skirting applies to builds so if you wish say a higher 10cm or 12cm then it is a variation and extra cost would be involved. Hence why need to spend many hours prior to negotiate every finer detail!
Best of luck and keep us posted if you do get around to do such a project.

 

I'd love to be confident enough to project manage myself but, at least for the structural and exterior stuff, I can't see myself handling the trades, I'd need one party to blame / sue if things hit the fan. But definitely after the externals and bones and subfloor is done, the rest is straightforward and I'm confident to be able to project manage the interior finishes - bathroom, kitchen, flooring, gyprocking, rough in, etc etc. The question then becomes - what money I save vs the extra time (undoubtedly I'd be slower) taken.

Is it common for building contracts to handover at a intermediate step, e.g. after rough in and subfloor and external walls? or is this not common? Any common pitfalls in splitting up work like this?

 

I can see problems arising in splitting where will you draw the boundaries for responsibility and insurance purposes, who will take whole responsibility in case something goes wrong? Just be careful, in construction industry often this can be an issue and hard to prove who was responsible for what?