I'm in eastern Tennessee. Not too terribly far from you, but not sure how much different costs would be. In my area, $165/sq ft (plus cost of land) could feasibly get you a nice house with higher end finishes- nice hardwood, granite, etc., -but not top of the line (SubZero, Wolf) appliances, more unusual granites or marbles, etc. That also wouldn't include a pool and landscaping. I have to agree with others, though, that I don't think you could do the first house for $165/sq ft, it costs are comparable to my area. On many houses, a range of materials could be used (think vinyl vs. Hardi vs. wood siding, for example) and everything might still turn out OK. But this house demands expensive materials. In my opinion, anything less would look silly. Cultured stone is a no-go, for example. With that said, if you haven't built a house before or have some other frame of reference for what things cost in new construction, I know it can be tough to accept what people are telling you if it doesn't match up with what you're thinking- I've been there. Somebody would tell me how expensive my house would be to build, and I would think along the lines of "My cousin Joe Bob built his house for $55/sq ft...I can definitely build a lovely huge house with everything I want for double that...surely for triple that price." Nope. Some of us are wrong- you can either build if for that price or not. You need to find a reputable, experienced builder that builds the type of house you're interested in and talk to them about costs. I've found that those with experience in the construction field (experienced in building similar homes to the one you want to build) can pretty quickly look at a plan and give you a fairly accurate ballpark of what it would cost to build. Then you'll at least know if you're remotely in the price range you'd like to be at before you spend more time and resources on a plan. Good luck.

Everyone keeps telling us it is a construction zone and can not look "pretty". True, but that doesn't mean it has to be a nasty health hazard. Workers who relieve themselves in the shower or the neighbor's backyard or wherever, are demonstrating their contempt for the owners and neighbors. As in "I'll show those hioty toidy rich bast@rds." If you're finding waste in inappropriate places, like your dry plumbing or duct work, complain dircetly to the builder. If he tries to laugh it off, or gets condescending, tell him you'll call the department of health yourself. As for the OP, complain one time and one time only to the builder. Give him a chance to get the area cleaned up (INSIST that the area be cleaned up and if there are damages, restored) If it doesn't stop, go straight to the building inspector and the County Health Department. Police/sherrif's department can be good too; even in the country, many areas have anti littering laws and no dumping ordinances. (yes, they apply to *that* kind of dumping as well.) Years ago, when my Dad was the city inspector in a local town. One summer, I had someone drop me off at the library and planned to ride home with him at the end of the day. We left his office early so he could check something at a new development and he found that, although the builder had a Pot O' Gold on every block, the workers were trotting back to the dry, woodsy creek that ran at the back of the property to do their business. The on site foreman knew what they were doing, and didn't stop them because the workers were complaining the porta potty was hot and nasty, and not in a good way either. This "creek" broadned out as it meandered through town and eventually became a mowed swale that ran through people's backyards and a city park. As it turns out, both the builder and the foreman were there, and he told them the situation was unacceptable, and that it needed to be stopped immediately. He was polite, but firm. Instead of apologizing and promising to get "the boys" to behave as if they really were potty trained, he acted like a jerk. First he tried the "boys will be boys" argument (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and then he did the "poor me,those porta potty rentals are so expensive...", and when that didn't fly, the builder got all angry and red faced and started yelling "Why should I waste time cleaning it up?! How do I know *my* guys did it?" Never raising his voice, my Dad said he didn't care if it was dog poop, if it wasn't gone when he came back, they would all be going home. Told him he had 24 hours to see that EVERY pile of feces, toilet paper and napkins were removed, or he would shut them down. (Meant it too.) I didn't get to ride with him that day, but they had picked EVERYTHING up (the area also had some miscellaneous trash; with disposable cups and plastic bottles and whatever), and the builder had more of those blue rooms installed. My Dad was just an average sized guy, but he carried alot...

Another "yes and no" vote here. First, we have to define "old" house. Most of us here think of an "historical" home as being 1930s or before, built with care and a hope for longevity. Some here have homes constructed as early as the 1700s. But your friend's position on "old house" may encompass far more structures -- poorly constructed tenant/mill housing, post-war cottages with no intrinsic value, poory built 1970s "contemporary" structures . . . Do we find value in those simply because they exist and therefore require no new construction tax on the environment? That being said, I don't agree with his position that tearing down all old substandard (in his opinion) housing and replacing with new will result in a net gain in efficiency. It's just not possible, as there is too much housing stock out there. I think when we -- posters on an "old house" forum and therefore assumedly gung-ho if not fanatical on all things old and architectural -- think about people who own old houses, we picture ourselves. We picture our quaint neighborhoods and settings with loads of other folks just like us, stripping paint off trim, jackhammering concrete and removing vinyl siding. We are a minority. What we DON'T picture is the vast majority of folks who own old homes. They own them for various reasons. They inherited them, they liked the location, or most likely -- the price was right. After all, the homeowner on the lowest end of the buying power scale will almost always have an older house. Newer houses, by virtue of simple inflation and the tendency of the market to increase value usually, stagnate at worst will seldom if ever sell for less than they cost to build. So they remain unaffordable for the bottom-end buyer. He ends up with an "older" home by default. And if someone is stretching to make the house payment, maintenance and upgrades becomes an issue. And when cost is an issue, this work is either delayed, or done in the least expensive manner possible. The homes are shelter to many folks, not a statement. And many of them have become rental property, which is another post unto itself. This is the struggle we have in my current neighborhood. Yes, it is difficult to maintain the momentum in our historical association when abesntee landlords, renters who couldn't care less, and residents with "questionable" home improvement skills and plans seem to thwart us at every turn. As for recycling, I don't think it has anything to do with where a person lives. I think making the decision to "bring back" an historic home automaically qualifies you as an activist to some degree -- you buck the conventional wisdom of moving to the 'burbs, you're making a statement. I think an "activist" is more likely to do he heavy lifting like recycling and composting. But, there are plenty of recyclers in certain suburban areas, too. After all, a lot of those folks are a lot like us, but just want to be able to put their kids in public school (sad but true).

Thanks. We do have some preliminary sketches and will be tweaking those. The landscape designer was pretty good about asking what we wanted and trying to improve on that. =P We weren't sure about the steps so we let her be herself on those. There are curves of course--the drive is curvy and the walk has to curve. Curved planting areas and a rounded lawn since the alternative to that is a weird polygon like I already have. I should get my scanner working maybe! Or camera. The porch doesn't run all the way across--the roof does, however. The house extends to the edge of the roof on the right side which is absolutely impossible to tell from that photo. The little window behind the lamppost looks over the porch, the larger one near the garage is all the way out to the typical setback under the eaves. (I know there are proper terms for all this somewhere.) Much wider steps would be nice, but with half the front being driveway already, I don't think we can pull it off! I don't know if it's relevant, but the only places one can sit inside the house and appreciate any front yard landscaping is the kitchen table (the window closer to the garage) where you can't see much more than driveway and the toilet whose window is tucked between the garage and kitchen in the direction of the garage. That's the good seat. I really do appreciate all the views on this. Thanks!!