Settlement house 1954 - complete renovation possible?

Looks really great! You can be proud of yourselves!

: now that you have extensively evaluated the advanced renovation, would you like to reflect on my ramblings from nearly two and a half years ago

The lovableness of your property doesn’t make it any bigger, younger, or more favorably laid out. I’ll start from the bottom: the basement is apparently mixed from concrete and masonry. The tool room is not suitable for conversion into a garage; for proof of a parking space, it would be too short. In the rear (!) area I see a pit – if this is still the current state of sewage disposal, I would add another layer to my skepticism. On the ground floor, I could imagine the central wall, despite its thickness, being load-bearing (for the beam ceiling); I suspect the other interior walls are made of gypsum panels. The one to the children's room can be removed. In the attic, even the central wall is probably not load-bearing, and the timber framing makes me doubt whether it could support insulation (of the dormers and on the rafters) according to today’s standards. The roof overhang on the gable side is only 20 cm and would be practically used up with ETICS. Honestly: economically I would estimate the shell at a "lover’s value plus zero" – and that with a floor plan modification potential that is practically not existing. If you cannot answer the crucial question “do we want to embrace this house like an old dog into the hearts of our family” with a heartfelt “yes” without hesitation, then look for another property.

to reflect once (not just evaluate, but also as a “fact check” regarding the contained assessments – was I right about the load-bearing wall, the pit, and the insulation bearing capacity of the roof structure?)?
And: are you “only” proud of what you have achieved, or would you dare do it again?

: now that you have extensively evaluated the advanced renovation, would you like to reflect on my rambling from almost two and a half years ago (not just judge it, but also do a "fact check" regarding the assessments contained – was I right about the load-bearing wall, the pit, and the insulation load capacity of the roof structure?)? And: are you "only" proud of what you achieved, or would you dare to do it again?

Sorry that I haven’t addressed the mentioned details earlier.

The cellar assessment is okay so far. Humidity currently below 70%.

The pit behind the house was either not connected to the sewage for a very long time or never at all. The old cast pipes under the floor went into the regular sewer system and the pit itself contained just some sand and about one cubic meter of water.

The middle wall was a timber frame filled with pumice stone. According to the structural engineer, I had a steel beam installed between the kitchen and the living room over the passage.

Otherwise, except for the two chimneys, everything above floor level was timber frame filled with pumice stone. Perfect to tear down and statically uncritical.

According to the structural engineer, the roof was no problem as long as we stayed below the surface load of the old tile covering. So it became 12 cm mineral wool between rafters and 16 cm PUR panel insulation. Above that wood boarding on longitudinal battens and aluminum shingles. The wood boarding could simply balance out the roof overhang for 18 cm insulation on the facade without any additional support structure.

In conclusion: We are proud of the project, but if a stranger – let’s say in an internet forum ;) – would ask me now whether they should dare such a project, I would rather advise against it and provide a long list of all the many risks through which we ultimately sailed through unscathed.

PS: The roof pictures are still without the ETICS facade.

The partition wall was timber framing filled with pumice stone. According to the structural engineer, I had a steel beam installed over the passage between the kitchen and the living room.
Otherwise, except for the two chimneys, everything was timber framing filled with pumice stone. Great for demolition and structurally uncritical above the upper floor.

Except for where you replaced the wall with the steel beam, you kept the pumice-timber framing combination, right?

through which we ultimately got off lightly.

Well, that’s the main thing, good luck and much success going forward!

Apart from where you replaced the wall with the steel beam, you left the combination of pumice and timber frame, right?

yes, almost everywhere. At the top, I had to replace a wall with drywall because the wall in the floor below was gone. Everything had to be removed down to the timber frame. The new wall was then built so that the old wooden beams can still be seen. I’ll show it in the next batch of pictures. You can see it further up though. (first picture October 12)

In conclusion: We are proud of the number, but if someone unknown to me - let's say in an internet forum ;) - were to ask me whether they should attempt such a project, I would rather advise against it and provide a long list of all the many risks through which we ultimately barely made it through unscathed.

Then I'll boldly ask about the biggest risks.. ;)

I really like your result and find the thread very exciting; I can also really appreciate the finished projects and their charm, but I am also very much a numbers person. In other words, how did your initial calculation hold up over time?