I used to have tiled floors at the old place ..the whole downstairs was tiled ( lounge, study, living room , kitchen, laundry) terracotta ones..not cold at all contrary to what people think .. the kids loved riding their trikes around the house as it was massive open living space 36 squares in all. we had a wool rug where the living area was so kids can lounge around.. I find tiles are easier to maintain than floor boards.A quick vacuum and mop is all it needed and it hid the dirt well..whereas floor boards collects dust and hair etc.. Timber floorboards are nice to look at..the floating /laminate looks cheap and nasty I'd rather tiles instead.

As I was using the same tiles, vanities etc and tradesmen at the same for both the bathrooms downstairs, it helped reduce the cost. I would say roughly $15,000 per bathroom and that also included getting the expensive Italian feature tiles and the scones/ wall lights weren't cheap either. If you design cleverly, you can purchase most items at a good price, then shell out a bit for the wow factor pieces!

All the 'sad' and disapppinted people commenting here; those who 'dislike this and that, or want to see 'character' retained, etc, etc, ought to get out more; to go see the world. As far as I can see, much of the architectual integrity HAS been retained. Is this 'sadness' a Victorian thing?; must we save all the old buildings, all the trees, the whole planet - from what? For what? Despite the hype, we're not likely to tip the place off it's axis anytime soon. Likewise with older houses; give them fresh breath, i say. Using whatever our creative and forward-looking brains can offer us is a positive solution to all things. My recently renovated heart agrees! This cosmetic reno' is nothing short of a grand improvement on its' former presentation; it's lighter, brighter and far more livable; refecting the owners outlook on life, I'd say. So, to all the 'experts', to those who want to pretend that they'd prefer to live in the dark ages - say, the 70's which were notoriously bland and most everything built then was built to a tough budget. ( I remember building in the 70's, in the 80s', renovating and building in the 90s', the nouties and still renovating now; i just can't seem to leach it out of my DNA as I complete the restoration of a 1930's Cal' Bung', one runied in the 70s' by some hapless 'handyman' who insatlled a plastic Chub and added a Victorian bull-nose verandah! All my homes turned out differently as my tastes and budget changed. Beginning in 1974 when I painted the front door of my 60's 2-bedder, bright yellow, the weatherboards 'Conifer'; the darkest posible green, now cracking in the sun, no doubt! Or has it been renovated by some 21st century house-hipsters? Then in 1976 I chose Avo' toilets, basins and bath ! Used native timbers, unpainted T & G everywhere, too ) I pulled out 'space wasting' french doors and installed open arches ! And wall-papered everything that didn't move. Not every so-called 'mid-century' home is a classic, or is worth preserving. Like this one probably was, they were pretty darned ordinary, particularly compared to those of the Victorian, Edwardian, the Art Deco and Californian Bungalow styles before them; all of which HAD definable chararcter, had enduring stlye; and are much sought-after and highly valued for having it laid, thickly, throughout. 70s' era homes were / are lacking wholly in character; and they lacked space, lacked insulation, lacked lots of design and comfort amenity we all want and deserve today. They're, nevertheless, given a new and longer life when younger eyes and energy are applied to their renovation, design and decor. Good on them!

I had a similar idea to your one oklouise , of building above the new garage , but I had a couple of alternative tweaks -- I wondered about coming 'forward' with the garage and upstairs , thereby having the upstairs front rooms closer to the street . The one slight problem I can see with your plan is that the dining area could be a dark area -- by coming 'forward' you keep an extra window on the downstairs side profile . The problem with that suggestion though , is that the roof may look funny , with a lower centred peak and then an upper one , so I then wondered about still going above the garage , but having the upstairs wider in profile , effectively 'stepping' 3 metres or so over the 'old' house , effectively removing that 'corner' of the existing roof and having a floor above instead of roof trusses , and have the existing roof butt up to the new upstairs side wall -- it would look more balanced IMO , you won't need to remove all the existing roof and strengthen it -- by utilising the existing brick walls it may not need any additional strengthening ? By tying the existing roof trusses to the new side wall it won't need too much strengthening either . It should also look a lot less like an add-on if the styles and materials are matched correctly IMO .