Practical To Raise A One-storey House 10 Feet?

[RY12]

Is it at all economically practical to build a small one-storey concrete house now in a manner that would make it capable of being raised a storey in the future (when i have more money)? My idea is now I'd pour a reinforced concrete floor that would just rest on the ground, serving as the foundation, as opposed to having posts set into the ground. Then in the future I'd dig under the slab and put some jacks under the floor and raise it up a storey, and then put concrete posts under it.

I ask this because the lot is urban and isn't huge, and I don't want a one-storey house to inefficiently take up space.

[NovaBlue05]

Even if it were possible, I can only imagine that it would be extremely expensive to make such a retrofit. How much more does it add to form up and pour the columns. I heard the concrete structural work is some of the cheapest part of the construction.

[RY12]

Even if it were possible, I can only imagine that it would be extremely expensive to make such a retrofit. How much more does it add to form up and pour the columns. I heard the concrete structural work is some of the cheapest part of the construction.

The first-storey columns themselves wouldn't be too expensive i think, but the extra labor involved with constructing the home up on a second floor would be, so i've read. Plus the columns would actually have to be fairly strong, since I want the floor and walls of the second storey to be concrete/block.

Seems to me if I went the one-storey route and just poured the floor slab a few inches thicker and reinforced it well, it would be able to tolerate the unsupported span between the i-beams as it's getting jacked up. But i could be totally wrong and this whole idea could be insane. ...I could even leave some rebar sticking out of the slab into the dirt, so that when it does get jacked up, the first storey columns would have something to secure to on the house above.

[ignis]

I would think this is an expensive way to do what I think you want…

You want in X years time a 2 story house RIGHT? But at the moment only have funds for a single story RIGHT?

As the foundations + the thickness of the columns + the size of the steel used for the re-enforcement columns and ring beam are different on a single story than a 2 story, so you would find it expensive to build upstairs 1^st on the ground floor and later rise this to build downstairs under it.

The best way is to build the house shell 2 story, but only fill in the ground floor, under the ring beam, leaving the upstairs as an open space until funds are there to build the upstairs. = there no jacking up, no more columns to build, as the pillars are already poured for upstairs and the roof is already in place.

This is done often in Portugal, but not only for lack of money reason., as there is far less government tax to pay if you live in the downstairs with the upper floors open for over 1 year.

The other way as we did many times again in Portugal build the ground floor = foundations > ring beam > your concrete columns [leave at least 1m steel higher than the top of the upper ring beam to join the top floor at a later date] > ring beam > fill in the floor, and seal [many would then build a stair on the outside of the house to the flat roof,] > when there is more funds add the top floor and roof.

[NovaBlue05]

Not sure what kind of equipment you would need to lift a slab with a house on it. If it's a tight, urban setting with restricted room to manuvuer, then it probably exacerbates things. I dont think the actual construction of the dwelling is much more difficult if it is at ground level versus 3 meters off the ground so the extra first cost is the columns and beams to support the dwelling.

When you say "concrete house" , do you mean walls made of concrete load bearing columns with brick infill?

[RY12]

You want in X years time a 2 story house RIGHT? But at the moment only have funds for a single story RIGHT?

Yes, 5+ years. leaving the second storey unfinished sounds like it'd look really ugly! especially w/out a roof!

When you say "concrete house" , do you mean walls made of concrete load bearing columns with brick infill?

Yes. Well, if your right that the extra labor for working on a second storey is minimial, then how much more are 2-storey columns vs 1-storey ones? I might save money doing a two storey because then the floor for the second storey doesn't have to be poured concrete like it would if i was just doing a 1storey.

[chiang mai]

Why not build a one storey house now that is capable of having a second storey added to it later? It makes no sense to build the top floor first then lift it up and add the ground floor later.

[ozzydom]

Jacking up a concrete block (or solid concrete) ground floor to become the first floor would be an engineering nightmare anywhere let alone in Los where appropriate equipment is scarce.

Much easier to build your ground floor with upgraded columns to suit future extension upwards and pour a suspended flat concrete roof which at a later date becomes the floor of the first floor extension ,have seen this done both here and Oz.

The price should not be much different to putting on a normal roof and it means your extension would be much cheaper because you already have your foundations .

As somebody said earlier you leave your column rebar boxing extended through the roof/floor.

If you look around any town in Los you will see this method of being used.

[khunandy]

Even if it were possible, I can only imagine that it would be extremely expensive to make such a retrofit. How much more does it add to form up and pour the columns. I heard the concrete structural work is some of the cheapest part of the construction.

I really think it would be more practical to do the reverse of what you are proposing. Build a 2 story house from the start but complete only the top story complete the bottom story later.

[NovaBlue05]

Even if it were possible, I can only imagine that it would be extremely expensive to make such a retrofit. How much more does it add to form up and pour the columns. I heard the concrete structural work is some of the cheapest part of the construction.

I really think it would be more practical to do the reverse of what you are proposing. Build a 2 story house from the start but complete only the top story complete the bottom story later.

Thats what I was suggesting as well...in my own clumsy verbiage Get the 2nd story where it needs to be and just leave the space underneath open

[Jandajoy]

Is it at all economically practical to build a small one-storey concrete house now in a manner that would make it capable of being raised a storey in the future (when i have more money)? My idea is now I'd pour a reinforced concrete floor that would just rest on the ground, serving as the foundation, as opposed to having posts set into the ground. Then in the future I'd dig under the slab and put some jacks under the floor and raise it up a storey, and then put concrete posts under it.

I ask this because the lot is urban and isn't huge, and I don't want a one-storey house to inefficiently take up space.

A satangs' worth of thought

Where are you building?

Definately build a frame for 2 stories and fill one in to live in. Top or bottom, it's up to you. Top = cooler, air circulation etc. but you'd need a roof.

Concrete soaks up heat.

It's worth thinking about shade, insullaton and so on BEFORE you build.

A standard 10cm reinforced base slab "could" be OK if you're on a flat, stable, compressed site. You might need to consider anchors. ie steel going into the ground or .5 - 1m foundation columns, with reo tied into the slab and the uprights.

As noted, lifting would be a tad daft but make a good video. I can see g/b/f hanging out of window screaming as the crane takes hold

Whatever you decide "GOOD LUCK"

Keep us informed as to progress.

cheers

[egg6447]

practical?,no!! posible yes. full marks for thinking out the box if you understand the business at all you,ve already got the best replies. there in there somewhere. not in a law book though.

[Vegemite]

Even if it were possible, I can only imagine that it would be extremely expensive to make such a retrofit. How much more does it add to form up and pour the columns. I heard the concrete structural work is some of the cheapest part of the construction.

Another idea is to build the ground floor with a roof on and then when you are ready to build the second floor, crane the roof off (or dismantle ), build the second storey and crane the roof b+ack on or reassemble.

Hey IGNIS, have you got any good recipes for " peri peri " or ' Piri piri " . Ih have been experimenting.

[NovaBlue05]

Even if it were possible, I can only imagine that it would be extremely expensive to make such a retrofit. How much more does it add to form up and pour the columns. I heard the concrete structural work is some of the cheapest part of the construction.

Another idea is to build the ground floor with a roof on and then when you are ready to build the second floor, crane the roof off (or dismantle ), build the second storey and crane the roof b+ack on or reassemble.

Yes, In the grand scheme of things, I would suspect that building the ground floor now....and then dis-assembling the roof and constructing the 2nd floor later would be much more practical than raising the entire house and attempting to accurately pour columns.

Chok Dee !

[Messmann]

Everything is possible...

But if you don't have the money, forget it

You can always dream about it and tell your friends

They will listen to you and admire you very much

Good luck

[RY12]

Yes, In the grand scheme of things, I would suspect that building the ground floor now....and then dis-assembling the roof and constructing the 2nd floor later would be much more practical than raising the entire house and attempting to accurately pour columns.

Chok Dee !

That's a much better idea than my original ... assuming i crane it up rather than disassemble it (which would entail breaking welds). though the crane might be expensive.