You should hire someone that can prove they do beautiful, thoughtful work.

Typically someone who would be considered a draftsman is doing work at a lower price but spends most of their energy on "drafting". That typically means they are getting the requisite work done, but perhaps not with as much design intent as you would like.

I say typically because there are lots of high-priced architects that don't do any better, and there are lots of draftspeople that do beautiful design. So find someone whose work you like.

Architect and structural engineer. Talk to another contractor (or two) about your budget, including 20% contingency. From the description of the scope of the work, the location, and the photo, it could be better to tear down and start over with a new design to fit your goals and budget.

You need an architect and structural engineer, as pie said. We used a draftsman on our current project and it was a huge mistake and ended up costing us more.

That is a teardown and rebuild.

Wow IMO this is a tear down it will cost more to fix and add on than to buld new on the same footprint if there are rules about that. I guess your first help should come from the city building permit dept. to find out what you can do. then you need an architect , a draftsman draws the plans after the architect designs the building they are not interchangeable.

Hi Sandy, I agree, this looks more like a rebuild rather than a what sounds to be a complete gut job (sounds like everything will be gone except the outer shell). Renovations are very expensive and timely compared to just getting the permits to raze the building and send it off to rubbish. Sounds like you have a lenient city, so you may be even able to hire a recently graduated architecture student (I'd suggest some patience though bc they will have to work with your budget and it could take a while so learn their way around codes) if you really wanted to go that route and then they may invoice you for an expediter. Big project, big decisions though. If I were you, Id sorta draw up what you want exist and what you want if you were to scrap the existing. Be realistic with your budget vs desires. Make your budget very clear and assume an extra 20% overage bc materials cost change etc.

I think if you consult an architect, the answer will be start over, and tear it down. A draftsman may draw something too illogically costly to make a remodel effective in any esthetic manner or otherwise, and charge you money to do exactly that.

If end costs are of no concern, by all means attempt to renovate. The restrictive parameters of tying in to an old structure is what increases the costs on a renovation to roughly double that of new construction. You basically listed the most expensive portions of the dwelling as a ''renovation''. Costing will be well above a new build for a renovation with your listed Scope. That Scope is only feasible for someone with unlimited cash funding. NOT bank funding. Unless you are in a very high COL where the land value is everything, like San Francisco, no bank will touch that project.

Either accept the cute little home for what it is, with some DIY décor tweaks, or pay the cash equivalent for 2x a new house for your project as you envisioning. Or tear it down and start over.

Any course other than the first requires you start that cash expenditure up front. With an architect.

have a professional photo taken of the home from it's best angle... and move on. i understand wanting to hold on to something from a shared past, but not larger than a piece of furniture.

Sande, you might look for a design/build firm. One stop shopping!

Plenty of people have gone broke using their heart instead of their head...... no set of grandparents or parents would intend financial distress for a grandchild or child, would they ? I ask rhetorically of course.

Just to weigh in and be contrarian to the discussion surrounding the question that wasn't asked...we've done plenty of rebuild jobs where the consensus was that the project should be torn down.

I'm of the opinion that "tear down and rebuild" shouldn't become the de facto, foregone conclusion as quickly as it does.

the OP had quite a laundry list of redos, thats what i based my opinion on.

"the updates would include existing foundation joist replacement/stabilization, removing flat roof and adding a peaked roof, raising ceiling heights, rewiring, updating plumbing, and adding a master bedroom/bath/closet and garage. "

not sure what she is keeping other than the front door.....

"I'm of the opinion that "tear down and rebuild" shouldn't become the de facto, foregone conclusion as quickly as it does."

Did you actually look at the op's picture and read what she wants to do?

I did.

Then I read a whole bunch of people telling her she needs to tear her house down when that was not even her question.

I am currently trying to help a client who listened to such advice and is regretting it to the tune of over $100,000 (and continuing to rise).

I am also helping a client re-do a house of similar vintage to the one here; everyone told them they needed to tear it down, we re-worked it to be something better than it had ever been.

I'm no preservationist, I've also torn down houses that WERE in need of being pulled down; that IS sometimes the most efficient way forward. I just disagree with the current trend of tearing everything down as soon as a deep renovation is presented.

you'll not get disagreement from me about the shocking tear down trend... i live in an area that is losing 3 cute capes and ranches a week to the steady march of 5000 sq ft houses on the same lot, cute houses that have a lot of living left in them as they currently stand.

however, that is not what the OP is asking advice about either. they want to change every aspect and dimension of this beloved structure. and once joists, plumbing, electrical, and roof is changed, why are we talking about saving a shell... which couldnt be saved if ceiling height is being increased?

Take my answer with a grain of salt, as I've never worked with an architect or draftsman or done such an extensive renovation .... but it seems to me you need to start with someone with serious skills, probably a design firm that would be able to envision your vision, provide drafting by either architect or draftsman as they see fit, and structural engineer which seems critical - and let them help you decide if reno or tear down is the best approach. No one sitting here looking at one picture can know that.

Oh, and I would definitely meet with multiple people before making a choice. So maybe you meet with a couple of all-in design firms, with a couple of independent architects and draftsmen - and then, after gathering all the information, you can make an informed decision of which professional to go with and what the best approach is to achieve your desired result (and whether your budget matches your vision). For a project of this magnitude, go slow and careful before choosing which pros to work with.

Good luck!

I think mydogmiddy is on a good point. If you want to actually renovate, keep in tune with the existing home. By your original wishlist, you're really doing no service to the keep sake of the house (which you seem to want to hold,?) youre completely redesigning it. When one thinks renovation, you sort of expect to tear down a few walls, do some bathrooms and a kitchen, etc. Essentially update the interior non-structural elements to the existing frame. Anything beyond non-structural, youre going to need an architect. Why? Bc a draftsman will do it....but then their going to charge you an expeditor fee which (at least in nyc) is incredibly expensive plus whatever he may have to pay the architect bc...your building has to stand up. So. You can go to an architect who will understand your vision of totally demolishing and rebuilding your family keep sake as a renovation. Hire an architect to raze the existing building and build new what you want and most likely a lower cost. Or, hire a draftsman who will charge you for his work, and/or the architects fees with a 10-20% commision maybe even another few for an expeditor fee just so you can get your drawings stamped.

Some places such as New York are the exception, not the rule. Architect stamped drawings are not required in most of the US for single family residential construction. In fact, less than 2% of the houses in the US have an architect involved. In most of the country, saying that you need an architect is a bit elitist rather than factual.

http://www.designevolutions.com/blog/house-plans-questions/does-my-state-require-house-plans-to-be-stamped-by-a-licensed-architect