Beware of one thing when dealing with a bank and doing a teardown - unless you make it very clear to the bank that you intend to tear the house down, they will end up being very concerned when it starts to come down. We recently had a situation where we bought a house and took out a mortgage for only about 50% of the bank-appraised value. We bought the house because it was a fixer-upper and we wanted to tear it down and rebuild. It was in very bad condition, and everyone else looking at it during the time we were making an offer on it felt the same way...there's no way someone could have lived in the house for long without fixing it up. We even told our mortgage contact at the bank that we were planning to tear it down and rebuild (with our own cash not a construction loan). He seemed supportive and commented many times on what a great lot it was and how nice it would be when the house was "done." So, it was clear to everyone involved that it was planned to be a teardown. Long story short(er!) - we bought the house in Sept, and in January, when we had our completed architectural drawings, structural drawings, had received building permits and were ready to start demolition, one of the final items on my list was to obtain "course of construction" insurance, which takes the place of homeowner's insurance when you are dealing with a construction/teardown project. In the process of signing the insurance documents, I noticed that the insurance company wanted to know if the bank should be listed as an additional payee in the case of a claim. I called the bank to ask if they're typically listed on a course of construction insurance, and after speaking with a few different representatives (none of who knew anything!), I was transferred to the office of the VP of Risk Management (or something like that)...anyway, someone on her staff almost had a fit when they heard that we were about to tear the house down. She kept saying that our house is the "bank's collateral" and not ours to do what we wanted with and that we could not proceed until we had the appropriate bank approvals, etc, etc. Keep in mind that we were not asking for the bank to pay for the construction, we are paying for the construction in cash, and we had an appraisal (done by the bank's OWN appraiser!) that was completed in September which showed the value of the entire property to be $1,100,000; they even broke this down between the lot value (approx $950,000) and the house value (approx $150,000). We have a mortgage for $500,000 so obviously, even in a worst case scenario, if the house was torn down and never rebuilt, the bank has FAR more collateral in the land than they ever had in the rickety old decrepit scary house!! Still, this person INSISTED that she had to go to some sort of approval committee and get approvals before we had a demo truck even enter the property. My husband and I were furious (although also somewhat bemused by this bizarre lack of logic and ridiculousness) and we spoke with several others at the bank who listened to our story and believed us when we told them that we had been very clear with the mortgage person during our loan approval process, telling him all the time that we were buying a "teardown"!! Our point was that, if there were further approvals necessary, he should have told us about them up front. Finally, we had a senior VP reluctantly agree with us but we are still being hounded by this VP of Risk Mgmt who is still insisting that we need to forward her a copy of our contract with our builder, our approved architectural/structural plans and all kinds of other info! At this point, we're ignoring her (because we have the approval of the senior VP), and construction has started, but this has been a big pain and total surprise. I'm telling you this long story because it just illustrates how crazy and upside-down the banks are these days and how their underwriting/loan approval processes have gone wildly from one end of the spectrum (super wide open) to the other (absurdly tight). My husband and I are the perfect clients for them - we have stellar FICO scores, have a longstanding history of repaying all our prior mortgages (two of which were with them), and MOST importantly, the bank has MORE than enough collateral in our current property to cover it all even if we never paid another dime!! So, I'm sorry to say it, but like others have basically said, I would be surprised if you get a construction loan with your current situation, and IF you decided to and could somehow do it on a line of credit or home equity situation, BEWARE that the bank will have a fit if/when they find out that you're tearing your house (otherwise known as the bank's collateral) down. Sorry, I don't mean to be a bummer about all this but it's best to go into it with eyes wide open and know the current lending/housing environment. Whatever you do, best of luck!!

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

Thanks for your suggestions, everyone. I think you're correct that using a mix of colors and textures will make both of us happy. DH has agreed to a different color island, but doesn't like the look of painted uppers with stained lowers. He says it's "trendy and weird." I don't understand his logic, but whatever. I am so FRUSTRATED because he cares what the kitchen looks like but doesn't offer many suggestions of his own. He says I can do "whatever," but wants veto power over anything he really hates. Which is pretty much anything that strays from what's on our builder's website. I've decided that I can no longer look at photos of any kitchens with white; it makes me sad. I'm looking for inspiration from stained kitchens that I DO like. So, here's what DH & I can agree on: - a wood species with a very subtle grain - DONE - simple cabinet design without a lot of ornamentation - DONE - a medium or dark stain that doesn't have strong red or yellow undertones - getting there - a light, subtle granite that doesn't hog the spotlight - considering Giallo Ornamental, which should meet that need - a wood floor that contrasts with the cabinets - getting there - doing something very geometric with the backsplash - painted island - still undecided. I love the idea in theory, but I need to figure out how to integrate it with the rest of the design. I'd love tips on how to do this. Would it be accurate to say that given all our neutral choices, the backsplash needs to be the star? In case you're wondering, DH is making concessions, too. Our compromise is that I'll concede quite a bit on the kitchen, but I get full reign to do pretty much whatever I like in the bathrooms. Two of the three bathrooms WILL have white cabinets. :)

Cost per square foot for remodeling versus building new is always going to be skewed. Reason? To remodel, the existing structure must be disassembled to a point to rebuild. Double labor. New construction is simply building to finish. Single labor. The tipping factor where remodeling is more expensive than rebuilding varies tremendously. If the building requires plumbing/electrical/HVAC reworking plus structural changes, chances are building new will be less expensive. And may be faster. Minor plumbing/electrical/HVAC/structural is always less expensive. In your case, the tipping factor is how much you intend to do. Straightening walls/floors can be a major overhaul, especially when a complete roof is in the plan. Adding bigger windows is a major remodel, and is more expensive than simply replacing windows. Reason? Sheet rock has to be removed, exterior siding has to be removed past the dimensions of the new windows to allow proper framing of the new openings. New window costs, labor to tear out, and labor/materials to replace sheet rock/siding. If the siding cannot be reused(after being removed) new siding has to be bought/installed/primed/painted. Replacing four windows can easily require residing that entire side of the house. Leveling floors will require tearing out the old, repairing/replacing the joists. Same with the walls. Roof may need complete rebuilt to be right. Rip off all the old roofing/sheathing/rafters and rebuild from the top plate of the walls. Could all that be done without all that tearout? Not if it is done right.`