5 Key Points to Decide Whether to Demolish or Rehabilitate a House

A commitment to the future is to act in the world of rehabilitation. The future is not to demolish what is not worth and the creation of new homes, heritage plays a role in sustainable development.

Now more than ever before, the rehabilitation and recovery of constructed buildings is a central issue. Until recently, we could even compensate to tear down a house that still had good use and build a new one, even if it was mere reconstruction. But not now, apart from the general consideration of the value of the built heritage, not only for historical aspects or for non-monetary value of the built, but already as a basic economic issue.

Take advantage of what already exists. Every year, thousands of people look for professionals in Brisbane demolition for their projects. Brisbane demolition "jdldeconstruction.com.au" monitor the budgets of professionals and share that information with you.

It is always preferable to rehabilitate, reform and invest in existing buildings than to build new ones. The advantage is that energy is saved, existing resources are used and damage and discomfort from demolition (waste, dust, noise, etc.) are eliminated. Rehabilitation is always more sustainable than any new way of building. 5 key points to know if it is worth demolishing or rehabilitating a building.

1. The Intrinsic Value of the Built

That is to say, it is not the same to have a historical or artistic heritage building as a simple old building. This greatly influences cultural perception, where in a few cases the old is confused with primitive construction with the simply old and of poor quality. You have to be clear about how to value something as old and of sufficient size to be preserved to all.

2. The Direct Economic Factor

If the repair of something involves a considerable amount of money in front of demolishing and remaking it, it is clear that it will go the second way. In the logic of a promoter the cheapest solution is usually imposed, unless it can make much more of the higher cost of another solution.

For example, reinforcing a floor can be a simple and low-cost operation or something that requires special techniques, skilled labor and unconventional industrial materials. In the second case, the cost is usually very high and it may be worth deciding to demolish and dispose of a new floor. In both cases a good result is obtained and, then, the decision in favor of the cheapest is an obvious reason.

3. The Technical Aspect

It consists in determining if what exists, through a sufficiently moderate repair - in price and complexity - can be restored to a state valid for the new needs.

If an entity or person must buy a house to restore it, we would advise you, before buying it and as a frankly acceptable cost, to request a report from a specialist to initially assess the condition of the property and a geotechnical study of the land. The first will allow to calibrate to what extent the property is reusable with little additional cost. It is necessary to think that without foundation or without cover a building is irretrievably ruined.

4. The Social Point Of view

Rehabilitation is a more efficient housing policy than the newly built one, with greater immediate and tangible social and economic benefits, since it improves the population's quality of life, roots its residents in its surroundings, keeps the city alive, creates economic activity, preserves the heritage and guarantees the survival of public spaces as a place of encounter, exchange, culture, relationship. Let's avoid the massive demolition of buildings in historic centers.

5. Personal Point of View

With a comprehensive rehabilitation, you can get the same quality in all the features as a newly built home. The economy of rehabilitation is based on recycling.

In a rehabilitation we can assume that the structure is maintained and at least 50% of the masonry, and that the rest is replaced. Therefore, the rehabilitation allows to save with respect to the new work 42.25% (structure), plus 0.5 x 23.75% (masonry), that is, 54.1525% of the total invested in new work. It would be a reform that, in any case, would improve the energy efficiency of the old building to current standards.