Looking at that vintage house, I was told that it is cheaper and easier to just tear down the whole house. That is of course to get what I wanted which was 9 or 10 foot ceilings. But in general, I think, adding that much square footage and gutting the interior, it is easier to just tear it down. The only time we discussed keeping the house (I was looking at various infill houses) was if it allowed something that you couldn't do anymore - such as violating setbacks. In general, you can't do an interior gut in our jurisdiction and keep such violations but it can be done.

The explanation used for some of the work was that you would be charged an hourly wage by some subs because they might run into issues rather than a sqft charge. Sometimes that might work out but you have to be prepared for significant overruns.

Obviously if there is some history or something about the facade that is truly unique, it can be worth the trouble.

But for the houses we were looking at, you basically have bad roof, bad windows, poor insulation, hobbled together heating/cooling systems and not attractive facades. Then you look at what you save - partial foundation so that your extra foundation costs more than it would have, partial walls/siding that you pay more to tie into etc etc.

Just my experience. The reason we are not just living in a 1945 house is also partly because I can't stand 8 ft ceilings.

Opening the walls , and so what? Walls get torn to the studs every day. Sounds like a tear down is really what you want and I also doubt that would include the windows with three or four feet of header above them . Start over.

So I have a 1956 modern ranch with 8’ ceilings I love it and IMO to raise the ceiling in an old house makes no sense as it trully is a tear down as you architect mentioned you could however make the addition have 9’ ceilings if it is that important not 10’ the higher the ceiling the more expensive it is to heat and cool so 9’ is a high as i would suggest.

Teardown. This is not a financially feasible project.

Have a friend out on Long Island with 8 foot ceilings and they're horrible, she hates them!

When she turns on her ceiling fan we all feel like we're going to be decapitated.

9 feet, absolutely.

Increasing the ceiling will be worthwhile with the extra benefit of better insulation.

Do it! You will not regret it. Chances are you will regret it if you do not.

"When she turns on her ceiling fan we all feel like we're going to be decapitated."

This speaks more to the relative horribleness of most ceiling fans than it does to the eight foot ceiling, which sufficed for most people in America until the early 2000s.

Actually, before Mr. Carrier invented air conditioning, ceiling heights were a function of the local climate in which the house was built. In frigid northern climates, ceilings tended to be low. In hot, humid southern climates, ceilings were often quite high. And of course, for those well endowed in any climate, large spaces with high ceilings tended to be the norm.

Thanks to Mr. Carrier and air conditioning, houses no longer needed to consider climate, and the rest is history.

If higher ceilings are truly important and there are no regulatory issues which may cause one to maintain the existing house, in whole or in part...tear it down, and make everything new.

Chances are, if you want to retain the existing 1945 house and you start opening it up, you are going to find all sorts of conditions which will cause you extra, unplanned expense. In the architectural biz we called these "ooops". Old houses have lots of them. There are no ooops when one tears down and builds anew, so long as the original foundation is sound.

Good luck.

No, it's really not worth it.

In frigid northern climates, ceilings tended to be low.

And that heritage is driving us nuts looking for a home in central NH where even estate-style 5,000-6,000 sf homes insist on 8' ceilings. There are an amazing number of 18th C. and even some 17th C. homes available there with sub 8' ceilings. Oddly, though, the population then wasn't much shorter than nowadays.

ceiling heights were a function of the local climate in which the house was built

Yes, actually that's true. But most construction built within the living memory of even the oldest Americans was 9 feet or under. And in a very brief post war development era, often slightly under 8, depending upon the region.

Where are you having your addition built? Maybe you can have higher ceilings if an addition is some sort of a living area

It does sound like rebuilding will be already easier with your plans. If you love the exterior very much-maybe try to work with your architect out whether it makes sense at all to make the addition a bit higher.

you're looking at a huge complicated project even if ceilings stay the same..

we did manage to increase our ceilings in the dining from 7,5 to 8 because the roof allowed for that)) (dining was the lowest somehow) but you most likely won't know whether you can make it half a foot higher until you open the walls. and there will be lots of other stuff you don't know until you open the walls. And tending to all that unknown factors will mean money plus another money plus some more money, and, obviously time

we-luckily-inherited higher(slanted) ceiling in the living and higher ceiling in the entry (the previous owners added that part. I forgot the architectural term for it)

the rest..listen 8' is very low celing for me since standards in other countries I lived before were higher..probably due to mertic system lol. But comfort depends not only on ceiling's height per se..shape of the room, light it gets..you can think of installing skylights...you can play with colors..you can do crown molding..you can make it work

if the shell of the house is important to you enough not to tear it down

otherwise I agree with already stated..it won't be financially feasible

My lovely home, and the homes of almost everyone I know, have 8 foot ceilings. I wouldn't tear down a house because of it.

1700s-era colonial homes in the U.S. northeast tended to be simple and small with rooms with low ceilings. This is a rather "large" colonial of the 1700s:

Ceiling in a typical 1700s-era house:

What’s wrong with 8’ ceilings? How much volume does a room need to have? Just because McMansions are all built with ridiculously high ceilings in the entry and massive great rooms doesn’t mean everyone needs height all the time. My house right now has 8’ ceilings and ceiling fans and I never feel like I’m going to be decapitated.

It does depend somewhat on floor plan what makes sense, but I wouldn’t bother raising ceiling height just to say I have the extra foot. (And actually in this house a couple rooms have an extra dropped ceiling added because they are small rooms and the proportions are way off if they ceiling height stays the same. Like downstairs where we have 9’ ceilings and a tiny powder room, the ceiling on the powder room is dropped to 8’ because if it was 9’ you’d feel like you were standing in a chimney, all tall and narrow.)

I certainly don’t see the benefit in doing that much work to an existing house - either keep the house as-is with small changes, or tear it down and put up what you really want in the first place. Renovations where someone tries to make an old house something it isn’t seem to always end up as major disasters.

Our home has a number of different ceiling heights. I much prefer the ones that I can clean or change a light bulb simply by standing on a chair. The ones requiring use of a ladder are more of a challenge especially as you grow older.

Well...I've lived and spent time in a lot of places around the world. I've lived a long time in a 1700s Colonial like the photos above with less that 8' ceilings in some rooms. I've designed my own home with the living room at a peak of over 20' and a mid-century Eichler with sloping roof decking from 8' to perhaps 12'. Currently my home has 10' ceilings and they enable a sense of spaciousness without feeling cramped or a sense of impending doom.

So take your pick. Mr. Wright typically changed the height and width of the spaces in his houses to accentuate the sense of spatial flow and function, from very low and tight to very high and open. Moving through his houses is much like a trip in time and space.

At the end of the day it's whatever sort of spatial experiences are most important to you and that your budget will support.

I will caution again, however, of the potential for significant and expensive "ooops" when you start uncovering a 1945s house. Be sure that you are emotionally and financially prepared. They will happen.

Good luck.

I wouldn't bother. But with a decent architect, you can probably get higher ceilings in the addition without them looking out of place. I put on an addition to my '50s home that almost doubled the size of the house and although I kept with 8 ft. ceilings in most of it, we do have a vaulted living room that doesn't look too weird.

Teardowns aren't permitted in my neighborhood, fortunately, and neither are second stories. The city considers my midcentury development to be historical. *giggle*

Should I mention that I plan on moving to Rockybird's place as soon as my kids go to college? My eight feet aren't as glorious as yours!

I don't know how you could raise the ceiling height in the existing part of the house without it involving the roof or the floor above, if there is one. I have a 1948 house with 8 ft ceilings (which are actually 7.5 ft). I hate them but have been told over the years that there was really nothing I could do about them. What I did do was have 9 ft ceilings on the 2nd floor when I added a full dormer on the back of the house. I like those very much, and it's really not a problem with the lower ceilings below.

I am fine with my 8' ceilings - and so is my utility bill.

My current home has 8 foot ceilings. My future home has 9 foot ceilings, with a vaulted great area.

I'm 6ix foot one.

I don't feel constrained at all when I come back from my future home to the current one, with its "short" ceilings. It feels fine here - constraints center around length and width of my kitchen, not it's height (and I don't worry about that ceiling fan decapitating me, either).

Unless you want a tear down, I'd leave the old part at 8 feet, and build the new part at 9 - a good architect can design this for good flow.

I find it interesting how many people are ok with 8 foot ceilings. I always use my height as my excuse but I am not sure that I still break 6'1".

Just to give some regional perspective, our last house was 11 in great room, 10 downstairs. Our beach rental is 10 downstairs. I know lots of people and don't know anyone who has 8 foot ceilings. Our rental townhouse is 9. When I built in 1999 - everything was 9 or up.

I lived in a 1930s house designed as 4 one bedroom apartments (seemed original to me at the time) that had 10 foot ceilings. That one was spatially a little weird because rooms were small.

But yes there are 8 foot ceilings around here - after Mr. Carrier but before 1990 or so. My 1993 house had some 8 foot ceilings but vaults/2 story rooms throughout. The vast majority of our housing stock is 25 years old or less.

I am going to bet my 10 foot ceiling house has lower utility bills than 95% of 8 foot houses. I am also not too worried about changing LED bulbs - I mean some fail early but otherwise it is a every 10 year event.

It is interesting to me that there are so many people living in 8 foot ceiling houses on a Building a Home forum. Also so many fans of older houses. Just interesting. I grew up in a 1945 house - no really good memories of bonding in the single bathroom or putting plastic on the windows every winter or huddling around the window a/c. Nope.

I have been in a hundred nine foot ceiling homes that felt totally claustrophobic, leading one to want to push walls away no matter where one walks. Just as many eight foot elevations that felt open, airy, and gloriously spacious. I doubt there is anything worse than rooms too small for their height. One aspect, without consideration of the other leads to discomfort. I've had a hundred clients with vaulted great rooms soaring to 15 or 20 feet, ( some spacious, some not)...... who all watch tv squashed in a small library or den with a "normal " nine foot ceiling as that is the cozier spot. I "built" a ten foot for a client, and gave that a gorgeous coffered ceiling. He too spent all his time in the nine foot space beyond that was smaller by far. There's a preferred "spot" in every home, no matter size or ceilings. It has more to do with a private feel, or an open one, depending the need at the moment. It IS far too often a tendency of two decades or more, to create more than one needs of virtually anything : )

I have lived all of my years to date in nothing over 8 feet, and never have felt claustrophobia, or a ceiling on my head........other than that time I was practicing cheer leading in my teen bedroom and took out the ceiling fixture.

Beautiful, comfortable rooms consider many more things than height. Many more.

No disagreement. Just generally, a 1945 - 1989 house in my area, has 8 foot ceilings and is not airy and spacious. But it is a matter of perspective and personal preference. I totally agree about 15-20 feet - rarely is that cozy or comfortable for me. I have had them in several houses and they get old.

"I have lived all of my years to date..." - well come on then. You lived in one way and you like that. I have lived in 8-20 and everywhere in between and I know what I like. You are a pro and I do not mean to diminish that at all. But I would be more impressed if you said you lived in a variety of settings and prefer the 8.

My point was, (if you read), that eight, nine, ten, 12, 20.......is more than just a number of feet. If you are UNCOMFORTABLE in eight, have nine or more! I have spent more than enough time in all of them, every single one, I assure you. I can also assure you that any and all can be comfortable / beautiful or........not.

In this instance, your instance, you want nine, so tear the house down. It will be cheaper and better. For you. It hardly matters what anyone else finds comfortable . It's your house, you already HAVE a recommendation from an arch as to how to best get it.

LOL@David Carey. You make it sound like us 8-ft ceiling people live in dark caves, walking around stooped while huddling around our wall ac units to stay cool. There are some beautiful midcentury homes and victorian era homes in my city with eight ft ceilings. They are gorgeous unique homes that are highly sought after. THey all have central air and beautiful updated kitchens. BTW my ac bill for my 4000 sq. Foot “8 footer” Arizonan home is lower than many small condos and apts. It is because of how the architect (Al Beadle) situated the home on the lot and designed the overhangs. My father is taller (6’2”) than you and I have never heard him complain about the low ceiling in his midcentury vacation condo with amazing views. In fact over the holiday he had a couple people offer to buy it, despite the 8 foot ceilings, but he turned them down.

@Fori - Thank you! :). I would love to see pics of your home!

It's not ceiling height, it's the context of the ceiling height.

It seems like the increase in ceiling height corresponded with the rise of the McMansion. Not that every new house with a higher ceiling is a McMansion, but I think it's a result of the same mindset.

Most McMansions are a checklist turned into a house. Certain elements are "desirable" or "good" and certain elements are undesirable or bad. The thing about McMansions has generally been that it doesn't matter so much how the "good" gets there, as long as it's there somewhere, that's sufficient. Context and proportion and all those sorts of things are mostly secondary to meaning the list of requirements.

High ceilings are one aspect of that. I'm not against high ceilings. I am not against low ceilings. I'm against doing either when doing so flies in the face of good proportions or good sense.

I have lived in places with 14' ceilings, 10' ceilings, 9' ceilings, 8' ceilings, 7'6" ceilings and believe it or not 6'8" ceilings.

(The 14' and the 6'8" were in the same apartment. They divided the height in half with a loft area. The 14' was main living space, and the 6'8" was the kitchen, a dining area and closets and a bathroom. The 14' was nice because of the Greek Revival detailing, but other than that was a bit too high for my comfort. The 6'8" was not so great...but those are extremes).

The 10 and 8 were in one apartment and they both had their benefits. The 8's were the bedrooms and bathrooms, those were fine.

I can tell you from living in a building which went 7'6" English basement, then 14, 12, 10, 8 on the way up, that a lot of people don't have a great sense of 6-12" increments over 8. Some people can't tell the difference between 8 and 9. Some can tell the difference between 8 and 9 but not 9 and 10. Over ten and lots of people have no clue. One of my neighbors who lived in the 14' apartment kept saying it was almost 18' (He was thinking the lofts were 8 with a bit over a foot in between, not under 7 with 8" in between...no clue really).

-----

I think whats happening now is that as houses get more complex with a lot of rectangles stuck together, they are creating "open concept" that still are made up of complex boxes stuck together in their middles, bleeding into perimeters that 1) go off in every direction and 2) create a bunch of smaller spaces in their own real and assumed boundaries (because we still try to assign rectangular boundaries to complex open shapes) . These smaller footprints end up having awkward proportions because they are topped off by high or multi leveled ceilings.

The new construction in many neighborhoods here is built on 12-13 foot lots. The older two or three story houses are 9/8 or 9/8/8 with the first floor a step or two above the street. The the new ones are 6 steps or so above the street. 9ft. basement half above the street/10 ft./9ft./9ft/ and they loom above the street and the other houses in sharp narrow 'fingers'. And the inside rooms are toaster slot proportions.

The OP is called Anthony Law and hasn't been back to comment or like. @David Cary, I think people think you are the OP (I know I am confused.) Can you clarify, are you involved in the OP's house?

For those who think a tear-down is less expensive: not always.

In my area, if we tear down we have to infill to bring the site to 3' above road grade. For us that would have meant spending as much just on fill as we spent on gutting and renovating the house. When the house is otherwise structurally sound it's a no-brainer to renovate in our circumstance.

When you have skilled tradespeople in your immediate circle who are willing to help you out of love your costs go waaaay down too.

The OP hasn't given any indication that the local jurisdiction has regulations which may encourage or penalize either building an addition/renovation or tearing down and building new. Thus, folks are generalizing based on their similar prior experience. The key word is "generalizing".

If it cost as much to have a brand new home at a higher grade rather than a renovated old home at flood level, you would think that would be a no brainer. Evidently not. And I like old homes. But they don’t like you back like an appraisal on a brand new home will do for the money spent.

As I stated above, it's not worth the cost. We built a home with 9 ft ceilings (16 at highest vault) and it was just a waste of money.

Now, vaults are another thing altogether. We have been able to add a vault to our existing living room without tearing off our roof because we had an excellent truss guy. We were able to slip those puppies right into the room (the exterior walls had been opened up because we did take it to the studs) without disturbing anything important. This might be a possibility in your case, OP, to give you a bit more space. But I don't think it's necessary if you design the remodel to be light and bright with good window placement, etc.

@David, my husband is a contractor and we got our 1951 ranch home on a very good deal in 2001. It was a mess! It needed a lot of work and through the years it has evolved into a two story home with an additional 850 square feet, total 5 bedrooms, 3 baths, etc., which works well for us and is efficient.

Our mortgage on this thing is so low and we were able to pay cash for our addition. We'll have it paid off in a few years, too. There are many benefits to buying an older, smaller home.

Increase!!!! That's my vote anyway. It's worth all the trouble in the world.

i'm a huge fan of 10 feet. it makes all the different.