An architect can help understand what can be done with the existing structure and incorporate new spaces, while change the exterior. You may be surprised what can actually be done without having to tear it down!

ETA how weird is it that the date posted shows as "last Saturday" when this clearly was just posted now????

No one here can answer your question specifically. You need local professional advice and help. Have you considered talking to local architects and builders?

Also carefully consider the costs. You don't want to end up with the most expensive home in the neighbourhood.

I would also seriously consider the style of house.

I say that because the so called contemporary homes of the 80's are today's dated homes. All the following were the hot contemporary style to have back in the 80's. Now they look dated. Everyone was into angles and wood cladding. Now people don't want them because they look "dated".

In my area of FL, the houses like you posted above are becoming a dime a dozen. Almost every single new home going up seems to be a variation of the one you pulled off the net. (My builder's dad calls them sugar cube houses.)

I personally believe that in 10 - 15 years, we'll be looking at these cube type houses and saying the same thing about them as the houses I posted from the 80's.

I'm wondering if instead of completely gutting or demolishing the house from the 70's (and it's nothing special), it might be better to work within its bones to create something beautiful and contemporary in feel.

A good architect should be able to help you to make the most of your home.

Is there such a thing as a perennial modern? (Other than the Frank Lloyd Wright homages of varying quality.)

I can date most Toronto homes within a decade or so. After all, we only have a century and a half to work with. But does that make them dated?

Here are a couple samples of the ubiquitous moderns offered in our ritzier neighbourhoods where the lots alone are C$1M-C$2M.

Wow worthy, those are pretty ugly...with the white, grey, and cubism they remind me of cinder blocks and landfill sites of discarded e-waste! But Toronto prices are always ridiculous...

To the OP: your original home is quite lovely and pleasing to the eye. I'd suggest moving rather than tearing it down.

As for teardown and rebuild - you can do it, but it may be costly. Check with your zoning and bylaw peeps - be prepared for fencing costs, permitting boards, hazardous waste removal, complaints from neighbors during hearings about not matching the aesthetics of the area, etc.

What is with these "everything but the kitchen sink"-clad houses? So freakin' ugly...I just don't get it!!! Toronto is like the Texas of the North in that regard (or is Texas the Toronto of the South?)

When your lot is very small and you want to minimize foundation expenses...

I think it would be easy to give it a more modern vibe and keep the basic outside as is and not devalue it and the neighbors. If you were surrounded by modern homes it would be a different story, but when you're a one off it isn't always the best. I think if you kept the basic shape of the exterior already blocky, but keep the roof shape (less issues with leaks too) and add some materials and different windows. Remove the frilly stuff. Do a square window instead of the arch. Square column. Change the landscaping, and the paver parts on the walk way and different gate/fence I think you will modernize the house without devaluing it and the neighborhood by plopping something that doesn't fit in the neighborhood. Then concentrate on making the inside as modern as you want. Less exterior changes means more money to spend on the inside too.

Is the existing layout of your home objectionable or is it just the exterior style?

Mark asks a key question. Are there many elements of the house, inside and out, that you don't like? Or is the exterior, with it's arched window, column, and the moulding embellishment are the problem? If it's just the exterior details, I don't think you would have to tear anything down and possibly you could even make the roof look flat by building a parapet---because essentially the house is probably really contemporary with traditional things tacked on the front. Most builder houses from the 1970s on are essentially contemporary no matter how the exterior has been treated.

This goes way off topic from now on but since the D word was brought up...skip if you are not interested.

With regards to being able to tell when a house was built, I think that is pretty much unavoidable. Houses are all going to be a product of their era--enough that you can tell what era they were built in no matter what the actually style of the house is. The exception is, if you intentionally build a house that is in the style of an earlier era.

Even your house CPArtist: I don't think there is going to be any problem identifying your house as an early millennial craftsman inspired house. It's clearly not going to be pre-1920, and nobody was building adapted craftsman style house before the 1990s, and your house is clearly not going to look like a 1990s version either. It's going to look like what it is...you aren't building a historic replica.

So I am not sure it matters if you can tell when a house was built. Anybody who is interested in architecture could take pictures of American houses from 1790 to 2000 and put them all in the right order and probably make very few mistakes. Some houses with strong regional characteristics could present a problem. I doubt I could discern differences in houses built in Arizona or New Mexico very well, for example.

The "problem" is how the individual feels about the era of the house in question. CP, you obviously dislike millennial cubic modernism sheathed in multiple finishes now, when they are being built, and it looks like you don't like 1980s contemporary either. That's fine, it's neither here nor there. Everyone has likes and disliked and everyone changes their minds about things, too.

Of the millennial houses in question, I don't mind the one the OP posted, I dislike one of the ones Worthy posted, and I don't mind the other one Worthy posted. And lots of people might not even realize they aren't the same house at a glance.

Of the four you posted, I like one, I don't mind one, I dislike one and I think one is horrible. To me there are enough differences between them to make a difference, to other people they might all be the same. Again, people change their minds as time goes on.

I used to think that my house, one of four with varying front facades, was one of the ugliest houses in the neighborhood. At one point it was one of the most run-down of the new era houses (1964-1978ish) in the neighborhood, which didn't help. And when architects or historians find out I live in a house designed by _____ the reaction is usually not "Wow, nice". Anyway, the house did not get less ugly in character, I just changed my mind about how I feel about it. There is a style of house built here from about 1985-2000, that I didn't like then, and I don't like now. I don't know if that will change. But I don't think it's because they are "dated" because they are 25 years old, I think it's because I don't like them. Same with the local row house version of what Worthy posted, some of which have Seven different materials on the front, and average 4-5 materials. I don't like that now, I think it will be "dated" in the future, but how much of that is because I already don't like them vs. their apparent faddishness, I can't quite tell, because I am biased against them already.

This is a very interesting thread--thank you Modern Design. To add to the discussion, as others have already said, the issue comes down to why you want to remodel the house and the extent of the remodel.

For example, if the interiors do not function for you and your family, and you find the exteriors unacceptable, but love the location and community...then, yes a tear down and complete redesign and rebuild might make good sense. Particularly, if you are living in a place like my old home town, Palo Alto, where property values are out of sight.

On the other hand, if your concerns are some of the exterior aesthetics, or a dated kitchen or bath, then a partial gutting and remodel is probably the best way to consider.

Regardless, you need to do some due diligence, based on your needs and aspirations. Talk to some experienced and reputable real estate agents, builders and contractors who are familiar with your local area and property values to get the best advice before making any decisions.

Good luck--exciting times seem to be coming your way!

Here's the after shot of a home built in 1978; I bought and sold it in '80. At that time, it was a solid red brick flat top with the second floor clad in naturally aged cedar. I spiffied it up with a commercial style canvas awning, tres chic for the era. Sold it for C$129k. Now, several owners later, it's worth about C$2.2m-C$2.3m. The lot is 20'x120' with rear lane parking.

To answer Mark and Palimpset: There are a lot of things we dislike and started to dislike as we learned more about the home we bought. Some of the key ones were:

• Exterior - definitely a big one. The arched windows, the round column, the frilly embellishments, the classic rough stucco - we're not big fans of. Lyfia, agree these could be updated.
• foundation - cheaper pier and beam type - floors creaking, some sagging. We wish this was a sturdier more modern basement type foundation.
• truss roof - low 8 feet ceilings throughout the house. We cry a little every time we experience nice high ceilings.
• Square footage - small for the family. We'd love a bigger 2n'd story - not just a room on top of the garage. Small rooms and bathrooms. 4 bedrooms, 3 baths in 1590 sq feet. We could do with a better floor plan.
• Pitched roof - we've grown up in flat roofed houses with roofs that we could walk out on to. We'd love to have that again - and a partial terrace would be phenomenal.
• Dated interiors - floors, floor boards, moldings, tile floors - this I feel would be an easy change

Thank you all for your most valuable comments. The discussion is exactly as I had hoped it would be.

Lyfia, thanks for the drawings - At some point I'll have to learn how to do those!

For those that are interested in the modern architecture that i posted the picture of: here is the link to the actual plan, with more photos of the layout and build: Cypress Modern Contemporary House Plan

Even your house CPArtist: I don't think there is going to be any problem identifying your house as an early millennial craftsman inspired house. It's clearly not going to be pre-1920, and nobody was building adapted craftsman style house before the 1990s, and your house is clearly not going to look like a 1990s version either. It's going to look like what it is...you aren't building a historic replica.

I do agree with you Pal. I agree because no one back in the 1900's-1920's used vinyl windows, or Hardie siding, and most roofs back then were definitely gable roofs. The exception being prairie houses or four square houses. Stucco was not put on in the same way as today and front doors were definitely not fiberglass. I also agree because almost no house was built with an attached garage.

Plus most importantly almost all millennial craftsman houses built in the last 20 years miss the boat completely on what a true craftsman looks like. Plus if a house does get the exterior correct which is rare, then they fail on the interior. Open the door and what is there is a modern interior missing those hand crafted details and instead are windows with no sills or mullions, clamshell moldings if there are any moldings at all, and soaring ceilings with no defining details. Nothing inside says craftsman or prairie.

However there are a few houses in my neighborhood that were built in the last 5-10 years, that when you first look at them you pause thinking they are old houses that have been "updated", not new houses made to look old. That is the look I'm going for. However unlike millennial homes, I'm trying to have the interior also echo the look of an older home that's been "updated".

A home where supposed previous owners kept the charming details of the woodwork, the hatband trim and the wide trim around the windows, the wide baseboards, the fireplace tile, overall layout, etc. However the PO's felt the need to update windows, open the kitchen and dining room to the living room, and maybe get rid of the single door to the backyard and instead put in those new fangled sliders. And they must have reconfigured that master suite from a warren of little rooms to create those big closets and master bath. And maybe what they had done is add on that two car garage, the powder room, friend's entry and DH's study. It sure doesn't look like it belongs with the "original house".

So no, I can't ultimately fool anyone, and especially not someone who is knowledgeable about architecture, but maybe I can make them pause for just a few seconds and think, "maybe..."

If you live in a high cost, extremely low inventory area where the sort of house you want would cost more than moving out, demolishing, renting another property for the duration of the build and moving back in, it might sense.

CP, you obviously dislike millennial cubic modernism sheathed in multiple finishes now, when they are being built, and it looks like you don't like 1980s contemporary either.

Actually you're wrong. There are some very well done examples of both and those I do like. While I may not want to live in one of those houses, I can appreciate the beauty of them. However there are way too many poorly done versions and way too many clones. So far my builder for example has built 5 clones. All are just slightly different.

And yes, I realize that not every house built in the 1900's was well done either. Back then there were some very poor examples built and way too many clones too.

I don't like that now, I think it will be "dated" in the future, but how much of that is because I already don't like them vs. their apparent faddishness, I can't quite tell, because I am biased against them already.

I personally think too many are faddish. It's the new keeping up with the Jones syndrome, only nowadays it's how everyone has to have the same sugar cube, with the gray cabinets and walls, and the polished floors.

Remember woman with huge shoulder pads in the 80's and big hair? Nowadays we wouldn't be caught dead with those fads but heck didn't we all think we looked hot back then when we dressed like that? (At the time I was 5'3" and 105 lbs soaking wet. You can bet I just looked like a kid playing dress up with those huge shoulders! LOL)

It sounds like if the house is poorly designed and put together, then yes, it might pay to tear it down and rebuild.

Could you afford to buy what you want if the home became for sale on the market? If not, then initiating a transformation to your house may be out of reach as well. The only good way to fix your list is a teardown. Costs for that can be substantial when you are dealing with seismic requirements and red tape.

CP

It's hard enough renovating an old house while maintaining its character. I am limiting myself as much as possible to what was available in the 1960s and intentionally trying to make it look period--without getting hokey--but to me it still looks new.

Modern Design

She's a goner. But do consider whether your total cost will make it a hard sale when the time comes. If that's the case, you can also considering selling as is and buying a more run-down property instead, thus lowering your land cost.

It sounds like you are not fully informed about some of the issues with construction in your area.

• Exterior - definitely a big one. The arched windows, the round
  column, the frilly embellishments, the classic rough stucco - we're not
  big fans of. Lyfia, agree these could be updated.

You might check with your local zoning folks first. The neighborhood I moved from last year specifically disallowed the type of architecture you want to change to. The neighborhood was known as a "bungalow" area. You could build anything you wanted to behind an early 20th century bungalow facade that met certain criteria. They sell for $200 to $500 per square ft, so they are out of reach to many people. Still people buy them as blower uppers. People do not come to that neighborhood expecting to find an eclectic array of houses. Thus the housing value for the neighborhood would be expected to decline if you started building odd looking homes. If your neighborhood does not have any architectural design restrictions, others in the neighborhood would forever point at your modern house as, "that house," and not in a friendly way.

• foundation - cheaper pier and beam type - floors creaking, some
  sagging. We wish this was a sturdier more modern basement type
  foundation.

Pier and beam can be cheap, but some of the most expensive homes in the world are built on pier and beam. Pier and beam might be the only possible foundation depending on earthquake prevalence. If your floors creak and sag, that's a remodeling issue, not a rebuilding issue. What is modern about basements? I could probably count on two hands the number of basement houses in California. Something about earthquakes makes them impractical.

• truss roof - low 8 feet ceilings throughout the house. We cry a little every time we experience nice high ceilings.

Truss roofs can be built above any room height. I think the room height is more of a problem for you than the structural design.

• Square footage - small for the family. We'd love a bigger 2n'd story
  - not just a room on top of the garage. Small rooms and bathrooms. 4
  bedrooms, 3 baths in 1590 sq feet. We could do with a better floor plan.

Unbelievable!!! I thought 3-2 in 1800 square feet was cramped.

• Pitched roof - we've grown up in flat roofed houses with roofs that
  we could walk out on to. We'd love to have that again - and a partial
  terrace would be phenomenal.

Just curious what part of the world you grew up in? You're not originally from California, are you?

• Dated interiors - floors, floor boards, moldings, tile floors - this I feel would be an easy change

Sure. This is last one is all remodeling, but you have other issues. If you are absolutely in love with this location, I would suggest looking for a more run down house in the neighborhood, buy that, and redo. You have a serious multiplier effect going on. If you buy a 1500 square foot house at $300 psf, and remodel/rebuild it to 3000, square feet, you likely still have something in the range of $300 psf in value. That's what is going on in the bungalow neighborhood I mentioned above. Most of the psf cost goes into kitchens and baths, so adding larger bedrooms and family rooms is relatively low cost.