After I had finished my Archi Masters I was working for an architecture firm who also did a small amount of work for a volume builder. They were actually a pretty good quality builder and at least got the orientation of their 'pre-designed' plans correct. We had the ability to make minor changes to every job and it pained me to see so many simple to implement passive options not being incorporated. Had most of their clients known that they would be saving MONEY over the longterm by making a few minor changes to suit their site, they all would have done it. The problem is unless someone can sell this idea to them as a financial/lifestyle choice, many just think it is about saving the world. It is a no-brainer if you have in interest in it, but for those who don't know, there is no-one there selling it to them, especially on the lower end of the market.

What did you decide to do?

There are dedicated house removal people who could take it off you, I don't know if they charge or pay for that. Demolition services may also do something similar. Googling house removal melbourne there are a few listed. Here is an example. http://www.khr.com.au/selling/ Another option would be just to list on gumtree or the paper and offer for someone to take the house. Either selling or giving away whoever wants the house organises the removal. We got a house like that... the owner of the land wanted the house gone but didn't want to pay for demolition, we wanted the house, we payed for the uplift and it was win win.

Interesting project there........when you're dealing with extending immediately from an existing building there are usually two ways to go....1. blend/extend seamlessly so that there is essentially no indication of any additions, or 2. separate/distinguish clearly between the old and the new. It's usually reflected somewhat in the floor plan as well. There is also a spectrum within both of those categories on how it can be done and whether its deemed to be done well or not so well. The issue I see with the facade articulation resolution (on your drawings) is that it is arguably neither one nor the other. The window/fenestration articulation is an issue because there's no confident consistency or sequence to the proportions of the new glazing areas. If you want "timeless" then you need to pull it into line with a particular style, either remain faithful to the reference/traditions/scaling/proportions of the original, or if that is either challenging or not providing the functional outcome sought, then consolidate the style/breakup of the extended windows to be visually contrasting yet balanced/controlled against the original. It's a similar story with the materials, it needs to all balance compositionally. Usually the decisions in this area come down to how best to balance also in conjunction with the roof form. And getting to the roof, this is again similar in that it's not ideal to mix & match gable and hip forms unless there's good reason to do so or you feature projecting gables out from a primary hip composition like as in cal bungs. I think you'll find it would be a better outcome to confidently work with one or the other here. In this case the existing primary reference is the gable form and this could be really be made the defining building form feature, but you need to decide upon how you articulate the gable forms - it's like there needs to be a clever/clear approach/language developed with some contemporary material to express the garage gable full height so it reads as the single material, rather than being broken up with the garage door and the gable infill - if it was a hidden door and the form finished more consistently the whole thing would look classier, professional and more elegant. There is super potential here to get this right and look amazing. I think the layout is all OK but some harder work is required/deserved on the facade, street presentation and form resolution, which obviously you are aware about since you've asked the question......possibly here, less in more ;) PD