We like the bottom one better.

But it isn't a fair question when the floor plans ARE different. One is a 1-1/2 story house and the other is a 2 story house.

The top elevation would look much better if it wasn't suffering from gable-itis!! The stone isn't working either. Having 3+ materials on the outside does not work well most of the time.

Number 2, hands down. Number 1 is too busy - looks like there are too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.

Well you can't design a house exterior without a look to the interior and vice versa. That being said, the new one looks much worse than the old. The new one, the front door almost disappears vs. the old one.

And I agree with chispa about too many materials on the facade in both of them.

I realize this house is neo-eclectic, but it could take a few pointers from classical architecture.

In classical architecture, hip roofs and gable roofs are not given the same pitch. Likewise, Primary roofs and gables are given a steeper pitch and secondary roofs and gables are given a lesser pitch.

There are two books that I would recommend: one is Get Your House Right, which illustrates how decisions are made according to classical architecture. The author won't even discuss neo-eclectic architecture, but the discussions are still applicable in the general "good design" sense. The other is What Not to Build, which uses photoshop to illustrate missteps and improvements on various houses and many are neo-eclectic in design.

The massing of both elevations seems a bit lopsided, but this could be improved by altering the incorrect use of a single pitch for all the rooflines.

The lower one is more appealing...

but I cannot say which is 'best' as they are two different things!
The top one is WAY too busy!

Neither. Strongly neither.

Thanks for the feedback but they really are basically the same house. Just the upstairs is different but both have 3 nice size bedrooms upstairs.

I agree with the new plan being too busy so the architect sent this revised version today. It also only has two materials, stone and brick.

I would welcome additional comments on this third elevation like what tweaks would improve it. And not just saying "Neither" without any explanation.

I do own the "What not to build book" and will check into the concept of hips and gables having the same pitch.

Thanks!!!!

Similar Elevation. Thought?

Still prefer number one. No particular reason other than number two still looks too busy.

Pittkol

To me, combining materials, colors and textures needs to make sense. A skilled architect can use 3 textures with great results.

The use of stone in the bottom picture (the last one you posted), is somewhat random.

Take a look at the picture in my pinterest (attached link).
There are 3 different textures /materials but their use makes sense. Brick was better for the chimney and they used a color that did not look busy or out of place, same with the bay window, the other materials would not work here.

The last sketch you posted (19-apr-13) will look better and cleaner if you only use brick, then you will have the smooth accent of columns and trims.

My question is: Is this an accurate elevation? Your previous elevation did not seem to have an accurate roof.

Here is a link that might be useful: Combining textures.

I prefer the 2nd in your original post. The new one still has too many peaks. It does nothing to make the house look better, just busy. Not a fan of multiple peaks like that and then the multiple materials just keeps adding to the random busy facade.

Why does two of the peaks have to have the dual peaks?

I know this type of style is popular to build right now, but from a design and proportion standpoint there are so many things that are wrong with a façade like this.

I don't understand why you would build a custom house looking like that.

There must be thousands of look-alikes in the suburbs here and likely where you live.

If that were my style, I would just purchase one in a master-planned community and save $$$ over a custom build.

My opinion, for what its worth: I would eliminate the bump-out (or bump-in) from your garage-- make it a single, larger gable. You don't want your garage to be eye-catching anyhow, and this will make it blend better with the rest of the house.

Since you're still playing around with your upstairs layout, I would aim for no more than 3 gables on the front of your house, and the tallest/widest should include your front door.

Of the elevations you've posted, I like the second one from your first post best, but there's a tall gable next to the front door competing with the front door's gable, and the entry should be clearly the most important feature of the front elevation.

For the last elevation you posted, if you can eliminate the secondary gable on the garage and by the front door, and you don't use stone on the garage, I think it could be nice. That would make the gable with the front door clearly the strongest part of the front facade, and it could look like an old stone house that has been expanded.

You're headed in the right direction, but you need to keep simplifying.

None of them work. And your examples should be under the what NOT to do pictures. They are all too nouveau riche chocked full of stuff to try to compensate for the poorly designed facade. It's like someone went into their jewelry box and decided to cram every necklace they owned around their neck, from the bamboo beads to the diamond tennis strand. And then finished it all off with a tiara and Chuck Taylors. It's Mr T, not Audrey Hepburn. It's unfocused and undisciplined and is only characterized by a lack of restraint. More isn't better. More is cartoonish.

Pare the home down. Eliminate all of those nested gables and random use of materials. Make the choice of material emphasize the design, not be an afterthought to dress it up. A plain home can have interest added to it through the addition of textural materials, but it doesn't help when the design is a already a mishmash of styles and elements put together. It only adds to the visual noise.

Channel Audrey Hepburn. Classic and elegant and understated with great lines. She was as stunning in evening dress with the cigarette holder as she was in a turtleneck and jeans. The exterior cladding didn't matter. The innate character, classic bone structure, and sense of style didn't change. And that's what made her an icon.

pittkol,

Rather than just saying I don't like the elevation of the house in the last photograph, I urge you to Analyze it yourself.

The house has No primary mass. The natural progression of most house with multiple roofs and gables is through the addition of more rooms onto an existing house (there are stylistic exceptions to this like Queen Anne, but the neo-eclectic house in your picture is referencing classic forms like colonial revival)

Although each gable to the right starting from the fully pyramidal roof to the right most brick front gable diminish in Height they project forward giving each equal emphasis. So there is no main body of the house, it is divided roughly into equal thirds.

The dependency to the left of the house is two front facing gables with the larger of these recessed and in two different materials dividing this portion somewhat in halves.

Then the whole thing is connected by a vague hipped roof that sits behind both masses, almost as if it belongs to a different house.

There is no "Façade" to that façade...it's a series of architectural embellishments strung together.

The photo you posted is awful. Way to many gables and rooflines....not good.

I think you need to ask yourself what it is that really attracts you...is it the slope of the roof? Is it the windows? The brick exterior? Then focus on just the 1 or 2 things and edit out the rest...Too much kitchen sink in these other elevations.

This post was edited by AnnieDeighnaugh on Sat, Apr 20, 13 at 20:55

zone4newby - the picture you posted is one that we have been carrying around with us for months. That is the look, colors and style we are trying to create. So thanks a lot for actually posting a suggestion of a nice design instead of just tell us what's wrong with our elevation.

I wish more folks would provide examples of elevations they feel would work better and would not cost $1 million to build. Looking at spending $575,000 for house only. Like a simple solution to a lot of the comments above would be to make the whole house stone which would look great but it's not in the budget.

I'm also posting another elevation to see what folks think of this stone/brick combination. Let me know what you think!

Thanks,

This is nothing the matter with building a house that is a combination of simple rectangular forms and simpler roofs, like these: