I would stop by your local building department and ask to speak with someone who can answer your questions.

What do you need to DO to your house? Being built in 1890 isn't, in and of itself, a problem. Now if you are working with knob-and-tube wiring, ancient plumbing, and 7' ceiling heights it may be cheaper to tear down & rebuild. But if you just need to improve the flow of the space you have by widening doorways between rooms or closing off some space ... that may not be cost prohibitive.

Lastly - if your house is still quite livable and has charm - you may find it better to SELL it to someone who likes old houses and BUY a new home (or a really hideous teardown that would be, in essence, a cheaper lot).

I'm a fellow MA resident and found our building department to be really, really helpful (though I'm not in Cambridge).

I am familiar with the area. My brother has a builders license for the city of Cambridge and has done a lot of work in that area. I say this because a state license does not cover Boston and Cambridge, each city requires a license issued by the city.This could be why your quotes are high, there are only so many contractors to choose from.
As far as building new, good luck. The only way that would happen is if the house was a total loss due to a fire and you could rebuild using the original foot print. Do not take my word check with the city building department.
If you remember several years ago Harvard had a building moved to make room for expansion, there was no way the city was going to allow the building to be razed, I said Harvard with all their clout. If you do the remodel you will have no choice but to conform to today's standards.

Sorry. My jaw is on the floor.

jonnyp is correct. If you think you would be permitted to demolish an 1890 house in 02138, and if you are surprised that renovation costs are high, you have a lot to learn about your locale.

And yes, even if you could rebuild, you would be subject to FAR (floor area ratio) and your house would likely be smaller. You would also be subject to setback requirements from your property line, rather than grandfathered in as you are now, so you your house could end up much smaller.

What you are describing is a MINIMUM 300K job and if your house is not small, more like 500K. I know; I've gotten quotes in Cambridge. If you are not prepared to invest that amount you should probably sell and and either buy an updated property or get into a nearby community where you can afford to both buy and renovate.

Did you just buy recently? Did your realtor tell you it was an "easy fix?"

We never discussed the eno with the realtor when we bought. But he is coming over tomorrow to tell us how much he thinks that we can sink into the house without going overboard. Bought the place almost 6 years ago.

The problem is that by fixing it up nicely (nothing crazy) and getting the stuff in there that we want we might be putting more into the house than its worth. Hopefully our realtor will know more. And I think that the contractor whom we were going to go with us too expensive.

But thank you for confirming my suspicion that demolishing and building a duplicate is not possible. I kind of thought that this was going to be the case.

You are in a highly regulated location that will mandate certain expenses above and beyond that of a simple "renovation". Yes, in most cases that are not governed by historic preservation conditions and/or the extensive urban use regulations that you have, a teardown is cheaper than a big renovation. But, given your location, which is going to jack the price up of any project you do, you would probably be better off selling the home and moving to a less regulated location.

We moved out of Cambridge because we could not make the numbers add up. And we are not low income by any means. After six years I doubt you have lost any money and perhaps can even make a little, only because of location. I'd either reconcile myself to the house as it is due to location, or move. It is almost never cost-effective for someone to renovate in Cambridge unless they have developers' insider costs.

Wow, I've driven through Cambridge many times because I like the architecture. We could never live there b/c of the prices and the small yards (we've always either fostered dogs or had rescued dogs who were too nervous to have so much activity around them, they need their space).

I never knew this about Cambridge, it makes me sort of glad it never worked out for us to live there ;). I'll still drive through, though, to see the architecture and get ideas.

"our house is too big for our lot according to current building codes."

This is one method used to prevent the demo of old stock.

My present house has a similar encumbrance.

While I have 1/3 of an acre, the surrounding hoses have been built at R8 zoning (8 houses per acre) that has since been altered to R6 zoning (6 houses per acre).

This prevent tear downs since you cannot then put a new house on the lot. It would take two lots to build a completely new house, killing any potential profit.

You can rebuild your existing house following a loss though.

I could try, but it would be very hard to meet the set back rules now in effect on my lot if it was divided.

A local city with many Federalist period houses and buildings has similar rules.
Luckily Virginia has a Uniform Statewide Building Code, and sub-municipalities may not alter it.
This prevent restrictive licensing of re-modelers, keeping costs in control somewhat.
The biggest driver is the high cost of housing in all of Northern Virginia pushing most of the tradesmen further and further out.

Their commute gets factored into the cost of doing business.

I thought of an exception you might investigate. A two-wall renovation. If you leave two walls of the house standing, it is still considered a reno and not a teardown. However, that is still subject to bag loads of requirements and restrictions. I have friends whose house straddles the line between Cambridge and Somerville, so both towns have jurisdiction. Somerville let them dormer their attic but Cambridge would not, so they have a dormer that randomly stops halfway. Crazy but true.

Marcolo! What a GREAT idea. I'm definitely going to look into that. Thanks very much.

I remember when my cousin renovated his house in Chicago. He pretty much left the 4 corners standing and built up from there. If he would have done a straight tear down he would have had to conform to new codes -which meant, if I recall correctly, losing about a foot on each side and also the further setback from the road. I would doubt that's possible in your highly historical district, but it's worth a shot!

I see tons of jobs in Cambridge where the house is torn down to the bare minimum set of framing to avoid zoning requirements for new construction. I would expect any builder who does major work in the area should know how to work within the system to leave just enough standing to qualify as renovation. Also, for real estate value I would think 'completely updated 1890 home' sounds much better than '2012 construction'. These days you might also want to look into what it would take to get some kind of green certification for energy efficiency as well. In addition to saving you money, I'm sure that would also be very attractive for Cambridge area buyers should you ever choose to sell.

I went to school, worked and lived in Cambridge over a 20 year period and my architect stamp still says Cambridge although I now live in an adjacent town. I've dealt with the Cambridge Historical Commission and the Building Department Zoning Officer many times. They are professional but sticklers for accuracy and detail so the process is rarely easy. It helps to be represented by a design professional since some degree of negotiation is usually involved.

I can help you with your situation if you tell me the zoning district, the Historic District/Neighborhood Conservation District, the existing lot size, the gross area of the house, and the existing setback (yard) dimensions.

You can't add new or enlarge old wall openings where the side or rear setback (yard) does not conform to the current zoning ordinance but you might be able to get a variance if you have enough patience, the full support of your neighbors, and hire the right lawyer.

If the existing gross floor area exceeds the area allowed for your lot size and district you would not be able to add on to the house and you would be wise to renovate within the existing shell and convert a garage, basement, or attic into living space (if the spaces already have adequate ceiling heights). There are exceptions for narrow lots and other hardships. You cannot move existing floor area elsewhere or trade areas and there is no exception in the zoning ordinance for keeping some of the walls; if you demolish part of a floor the replacement must conform to the current Floor Area Ratio. The historic commission has restrictions regarding the demolition and rebuilding of older houses and you might be required to present the design to them for their approval. Sometimes the decision of the commission/neighborhood group is binding and sometimes it is not.

Everything depends on your address. If you don't want to give your address on the forum, you can contact me at renovator8@gmail.com