We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AN AGE-OLD question for families concerns what to do when your house gets a little cramped for those who live in it.
The typical responses are either put up with it or find somewhere bigger.
However, a radical idea from an Irish architect says we could do something else: put another floor on the house.
Tom Duffy of Green Design Build sent his proposal to the Oireachtas Housing Committee last month and says that the plan could work on 300,000 homes. It would create 600,000 extra bedrooms and help families at the risk of flooding.
“[O]ver 300,000 post-1945 homes in Dublin alone would be suitable for the addition of an extra storey with the potential for creating 600,000 extra bedrooms,” the submission says.
“Homes built since 1945 in every town and city in Ireland would have adequate foundations and structure.
Making the provision of additional storeys open for consideration by local authorities would result in a sustainable increase in construction activity providing jobs, apprenticeships and upgrading homes where they are most needed, creating a true circle of benefit within the construction economy.
In addition, homes which are subject to the threat of flooding can be extended vertically with the additional floor allowing the old ground floor to be reserved for storage/garage use only.
Duffy’s proposal says that the plan could be financed by individual families through bank and credit union loans, taking development “out of the hands of developers and placing it within the control of families and communities”.
He adds that the idea would add more in value to a home that its build cost and could be used to retrofit energy inefficient houses.
He has presented the plan to the Department of the Environment, Dublin City Council and RIAI.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This guy is thinking on another level.
It’s a good storey alright.
There might be a floor in his thinking.
Needs to study the elevations !!!
The idea is not without foundations.
Thinking outside the box… our councils will beat that out of him.
Spot on Gerry, the planners will make him dig a hole in the ground and lower it first. I’m amazed to see flooded houses around the country with < 1m water where planners limited ground floor level in case they broke the skyline or raised finished roof level above the neighbouring house.
there are a couple of examples where sdcc have allowed a third storey, but only to the back where the front was maintained. it would be great proposition for those of us who “accidentally” ended up with 4 kids in a three bedroom semi.
@Desmodromic – 906 or 907ie ?? ;)
Well, with new developments planners are really strict on density something like 50 units per hectare. Developers have no choice but to go up. A large proportion of new house builds are three storeys. Might be easier to get planning now.
@alien8 We have the misfortune of living with two houses behind us who went up a third floor. It looks horrendous and seriously impacts on the skyline and view. My advice to people is to pay attention to local planning applications and save themselves a lot of heartache down the line.
It does make sense but ultimately it will fail due to planning regulations and council costs making it a prohibitive option
Agree. Maybe a good idea but 3 storey houses in the country look really odd. Bungalow to 2 storey would probably be OK
I think it’s a good idea ..
That’s why it won’t work
The councils don’t allow good ideas
….it’s a good idea. Cards on the table time: I do it for a living. Highest one is we added 2 storeys to an existing 4-storey. Adding a storey (we call them top-up builds), isn’t as hard as you think.
But you’re just moving the existing roof or what? What’s the average cost to make a 2 storey into a 3 storey? How long does it take to do? I was hoping to see photos or plans on here.
..you’re removing existing roof, gables & joisting, to create a new “platform ” to build off, and then adding new walls, new gables, new roof.
I grew up in a council estate that ended up being radically changed by the tenants (now owners). Flat roofs were replaced with pitched ones, floor to ceiling windows were shortened and widened. The pebble dash was rendered flat, extensions were put in.
The problem was that each house that was changed was done so to the owner’s taste and the result is a noisy mis-match that looks terrible in places.
Building up makes sense, you avoid the dark inner rooms you can get with big extensions, but we’d need to control it so we don’t end up with shanty towns.
It’s not a bad idea overall but it goes against the general ethos of councils. They generally require that additions don’t exceed the height of the surrounding buildings as it would be “out of character” for the area. From an engineering perspective it isn’t as easy as he says, or at least as easy compared to a rear extension that has a minimum effect on the existing structure. But if the space isn’t available it could make sense as long as the planners allowed it.
Disgusting paper pushing clowns obsessed with an empty skyline…
Councils are forcing people to commute when sustainable solutions like this are workable
We should allow some of the planning styles from South Africa no one house is the same. Makes boring suburbs so much more interesting.
But can the building’s foundation take the other floor?
He answered that in the column. But who needs to red past the first paragraph. ..
Would have is not same as Have
@ the Girl, your question is valid and just requires a tweak. Who would bear the responsibility of a third floor addition on any house? The home owner, the contractor, the engineer? We would need to get past that or the home wouldn’t be insurable.
Agree Gary he did mention the foundation would be able to support a third storey which in theory is right, but does everyone forget most houses built in this century were rushed and not built to spec by cowboy contractors and developers, who also employed non qualified builders at low wages and cut every corner they could to maximise profits.
The answer to that is The engineer. As someone who is currently going through the process of extending upwards and the costs of complying with new regulations in order for the council to sign off the work it has to be signed supervised, inspected at verious intervals and signed off by a registered engineer.
It’s the engineer as long as the contractor isn’t pulling any shenanigans or is completely incompetent. The engineer can’t stand over the contractor’s shoulder all day so there are cases where the contractor is liable as they didn’t follow the engineer’s instructions.
@Malachy. That’s a good point. Even if existing structural or as-constructed drawings exist an engineer still may ask for the foundations or other structural elements to be exposed so they can be inspected. It’s up to the judgement of the engineer and how comfortable they are taking on the liability if something goes wrong. And for the safety of the occupants they have to do their due diligence.
The architect in the story makes some broad claims about how many houses could be extended upwards but each individual case would have to be assessed by a competent engineer. In most cases I don’t suppose the foundations or bearing capacity of the soil would be a problem but if the foundations required strengthening then the costs could quickly get out of control. Masonry can typically do at least three stories without a break so that shouldn’t be a problem.
Build down, instead of up.
More expensive and defo not good for floods. Happening a lot in London though I hear £2,000 per sq. metre verses around €100 I think for above ground. Popular because moving means estate agents fees, stamp duty etc etc and going underground can actually be cheaper and will add value as long as it’s done right (water proof)
It wouldn’t cost much if extra foundations are required, all that has to be done is a few trial holes to inspect the foundations ,it’s a cheap way of getting so much more room than an extension to the side of a house
A radical idea? I would have called it common sense. As the Romans used to say ” whoevers is the soil, it is theirs all the way to heaven and all the way to hell”.
Not the case anymore
Never could see the point of councils obsession with all houses been almost identical
Just a couple of problems here, we need to address the issue of people who have no homes not the ones who think their homes are too small and it will play right into the hands of greedy landlords. Vulture funds are to all intents and purposes absentee landlords who are evicting their tenants; have we learned nothing ?
Your post has nothing to do with the article.
How about we do two things at the same time. I don’t think the article suggested that becuase people might be able to put an extra storey onto their house that people who have no homes can be forgotten about.
Then you went of onto vulture funds. Dunno where that came from.
When I see a girl on the late late with one child living in a hotel payed for by the state and expecting a two bedrooms apartment to be given to her by the state I as myself about how real is this crisis
You get light weight roof rooms, that be would great if the planning would allow the ground floor t o be separate unit kids when get married could get the house while the parents have a nice small ground floor unit etc
http://www.tjroofrooms.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=15
WARNING: If you saw the TV3 documentary ‘Firetrap Homes’ you should view the following documentary, which you will see for yourself the fraudulent certification and criminality that has gone on and continues to do so within the Irish construction industry, aided and abetted by state authorities. Here is the link to the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LHGwwlC8rs
It’ll be a good idea until one of them collapses because some chancer ignores the regulations, a bit like in the Far-East where a hut morphs into a 20 storey building over a number of years, then disintegrates.
And how exactly will this help the homeless families out there? We need to build new homes to house families with none, not to waste time and money making houses bigger for those who already have one. This is not a radical idea by the way, there are many countries globally where people build upwards when they run out of space, maybe this guy was in Egypt on holiday and has seen how the Egyptians build as the family unit grows bigger!
I think it would go a ways to help growing young families who don’t have the space in their current home but its not helpful for people ready to move out of the family home but can’t find or afford to rent/buy a place
cost?
Referendum on “Right2Home” like in German Constitution only long term solution. Else your kids and grand kids will suffer same repeatedly in future.
Very sensible idea and as such, it will never happen.
have your say