|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
It's interesting, isn't it. The New England coast is lined with a string of old towns -- I'm thinking of northern Massachusetts, the short New Hampshire coastline, and then southern Maine -- in which can be found dozens of examples of a vernacular type: the two-story gable-roofed house, behind which is a larger barn of similar shape, and a connecting element composed of several single-story or two-story additions, accreted over time. The geometry of the forms allows for similar shapes to be logically connected; the rectangular forms abut, and the gabled roofs intersect in self-evident ways.
The long shallow double-pitched roof of the structure shown above is of a different sort; its roof was not intended to be added to in the way shown. Only by holding the addition back at least four to six feet (in my estimation) from the front of the existing block, could such an addition hope to look like more than an ill-conceived and desperate attempt to gain interior volume, at all costs.
The existing roof shape is one which invites an addition to the front or to the rear, not to either side. This has already been done on the right, where the break in the front wall has helped to disguise the awkward roof extension.
This example will serve to remind all would-be designers of the intimate interrelationship of the plan and the volume; although virtually any plan can be sucessfully and appropriately roofed, the selection of the roof shape can have a major impact on subsequent attempts to modify the plan.
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:15 pm Post subject: Front addition comment |
|
|
SDR: how would you envision the addition of space to the front of the structure?
Note, this will be limited by setback issues; also, multiple rear additions already in place, no easy room for more.
Any thoughts (other than setback, agreed) on improving look for left side addition?
db
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know -- it has to be looked at as a whole, with the desired plan (room) additions and rearrangements balanced by the implications, to the exterior form, of those changes and additions. I recall what the desired improvements were; I'm becoming doubtful that this house can be attractively expanded as desired.
I hope an architect will add his or her comments. I suppose it's not feasible to a) find a larger home, and leave this one in its present state, or b) re-frame the roof to better accomodate the proposed new floor plan?
With the apparently widespread urge among Americans to "spread out," I suppose the resale value of the home might not be negatively impacted by creating a larger plan at the expense of an attractive and cohesive exterior; but "curb appeal" seems to have taken a back seat, here, despite the name of this thread.
The services of a clever and resourceful architect have never been more clearly indicated!
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Appropriate, and potentially attractive, architectural design involves the assemblage of material, in logical and practical arrangements, in such a way as to satisfy the requirements placed upon the design by its intended users, and taking into account the many pragmatic issues of resistance to wear and weather, exposure to favorable light and view, easy accessibility and required security, etc etc.
Falsity, pretense, inappropriate assumption of "style" without reasonable basis either in history or function, are to be avoided.
A building can usually be "read," like a human face, and conclusions drawn about the sincerity of its owner -- fortunately or unfortunately.
The great majority of buildings in the world have been built without the aid of any designer, much less a qualified architect; despite this seeming disadvantage, a great many honest, handsome, appropriate structures stand today, owing their favorable qualities, including appearance, only to the sincerity and good sense -- and lack of pretension -- of their owners and/or builders.
The motives behind the alterations you have shown are not to be questioned by a mere bystander like me; the appearance of the results of those alterations, which you have asked to be judged by those with (at least) a particular interest in the subject, are the legitimate subject of my remarks. You alone will have to be the judge of the motivations which have led to your proposals. But perhaps I can use analogy to discuss the implications of the proposed project.
If you owned a compact car that ran well and was sound, but you decided that you wanted it to be able to seat six instead of four, would you ask a body shop to make the necessary modifications? If you were able to convince him to do it, and you could pay for it, would that be any assurance that he -- or anybody else -- could make such a conversion attractive? Wouldn't you expect that the original sheet metal -- assuming that some of it was to be retained -- would compromise the effort to enlarge to new proportions, in a smooth and graceful way, the body of the car?
This is in essence the problem you have given yourself, in the modification of your home.
Of the two proposals illustrated and described above, the second is even worse than the first. While I understand the thinking behind the second proposal -- the additional form and its roof "echoes" precisely the existing structure, and the addition of a false dormer element on the right is intended to achieve or restore visual balance -- neither change is appropriate. The addition on the left, besides looking like it night fall off
in the night, presents a new and unnecessary valley, inviting the accumulation of debris and ice, leading potentially to leakage. A false dormer on the right end of the house would do nothing to make the left end more attractive, and would not in any event "balance" the house if it were oriented in the more aesthetically and practically appropriate way, by crossing the existing roof at right angles in plan.
Do you, in fact, find either of your proposals to be suitably attractive? Without being "expert" as a judge of architecture, does not the appearance of either alternative nevertheless make you uncomfortable in any way?
The unhppy conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that your house is not -- aesthetically, at least -- an appropriate candidate for the sort of enlargement you envision. Any attempt to do so is necessarily going to involve an unfortunate compromise to the appearance of the front of the house. When the house was built with its particular roof shape, the die was cast, in terms of what sort of floor plan modifications could appropriately be carried out.
I am happy, of course that the appearance of the house is of importance to you. A great many "abortions" (pardon the term) have been wrought by persons who cared only to gain interior space, and were apparently not upset by the thought reducing the value of the property (their own, or their neighbors').
Again, this is a problem to be presented to a local architect, who may be able to devise some satisfactory solution to your dilemma. I'm sorry that I cannot present you with better news.
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:21 am Post subject: Appreciate the input |
|
|
Thanks for the candid advice. If only it were that easy to (1) find another house that meets (or can be modified to meet) our needs; or (2) find an architect with appropriate ideas.
We are going through this exercise to establish a data point for modifications to our current home to satisfy requirements. Once we understand what can be done, and at what cost, and is acceptable (architecturally), we can then use that as input to the decision as weighed against the cost/availability of another home.
Given the current home and specifically roof design, we will likely raise the cost too high if we rase the roof (sorry for the pun).
We continue to have discussion with architects and will see where these lead.
Again thanks for the input and this forum has definitely added value to this process and facilitated our decision making. Specifically, we are at a place we were not before with key factors indentified by the forum such as the window design for the entry, step back approach to left side addition and identification of primary architectural issue which is main roofline integration.
db
db
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
