whaas_5a, did you have a specific question in terms of size? If you are asking about a ~2500ft2 house on one level with a 3-car attached garage, then I do think it is harder to achieve a pre-1929 "traditional" style. One approach that could be taken would be to design so that the exterior has the volumes of a "traditional" house + addition + later-attached garage.

Lots of very handsome one-story bungalows and Craftsman homes in our area, but you're right that they're typically less than 2000ft2, detached garage (or none).

"I'm not a bit fussy, I'm very fussy."

Mark, I'm sure you're a knight in shining armor to some, but for me, fussy translates to haughty. It seems to be a characteristic of many architects, and it's the reason I'll be hiring a custom builder with an offering of modifiable existing plans rather than an architect to design a one-of-a-kind home when it's time for my next home.

Mark, I'm sure you're a knight in shining armor to some, but for me, fussy translates to haughty.

Has nothing to do with haughty and everything to do with understanding the tenets of good design. Good luck with your custom builder since that's what I did. And because I did that, it took me 3x the amount of time it would have to get a house design that works well than if I had hired an architect from the beginning, and probably cost me plenty in terms of my personal time.

I thought Mark Bischak was making a joke (both times)?

I read "fussy" as "detail-oriented" which would be a good thing in an architect. Personally if I hire a professional I want that person to let me know very directly if he/she thinks something is "weird," "ugly," "meh," etc. (pretty sure I heard all of those during our design process). That doesn't mean that the pro needs to harp on it if the client already has decided against following pro's advice. Pro should trust client too. It is very important that designer, builder and client have a good fit, and there is no one-size-fits-all!

BB Galore, I think Mark was making a joke but even if you lack a sense of humor or tolerance for those who do, you are not justified in hijacking the thread to attack his profession.

Whatever your personal prejudice, "fussy" does not translate to "haughty"

"fussy" when used to characterize a person means "showing excessive or anxious concern about detail" and when it is used to characterize a building it means, "full of unnecessary detail or decoration".

"haughty" means "arrogantly superior and disdainful" and that is how I would characterize your unsolicited and off topic opinion of architects.

Now I feel like an idiot, I had to look up 'haughty' too.

I can see the confusion, BB used 'fussy' in terms of 'haughty' and I used 'fussy' in terms of 'attention to detail'. I hope I don't come across as haughty or anything of the sort. Perhaps this form of internet communication added to any misunderstanding. I have heard of some architects being a little arrogant, but I try to stay out of those circles. In my area I can't afford to be haughty, I would be kicked off the project before my nose got above horizontal.

BB - I hope you are able to find a local architect with their feet on the ground to design your next home with you. If you can't, beware of haughty custom builders.

greg_2015

For shame! You've now trapped the residents in a windowless attic. Those are actual functional dormers--even if the 3rd floor was illegal to begin with.

*****

So even the odd nonfunctional eyebrow dormer is verboten too?

Choosing designers and I rather fancied this project of his.

***

Or how about these dormers?

I think that is the penalty in most states for having ugly functional dormers in an illegal third floor, to be sentenced to spend time in a windowless attic.

Such an interesting thread--"Why are dormers/false gables looked at negatively?" It really has a lot to do with one's professional education, training and experience. In art for example, some prefer Monet, while others prefer Vermeer and still others prefer Wyeth, Wolf Kahn or Mondrian. These are all serious and creative artists, albeit very, very different in how they approach their work.

For those who wonder why the art of Bob Ross and his "happy little trees" isn't comparable, there simply is no explanation that can be made comprehensible without years of education and experience. After that, no explanation is needed.

So it is with architectural fru-fru and geegaws! (It's a joke, folks!)

Personally Virgil I'm a fan of "artist" Morris Katz

Oh great, now I have to look up 'fru-fru'. All this technical terminology is making me dizzy.

Not a fan of non functional dormers... they ruin the beauty of a roof line.

Hi Oaktown,

I specifically didn't have a question regarding size. It was more or less a question regarding false gables and dormers on a single story home and not utilizing them for light or an attic.

My in person discussion with an acquaintance focused on using false dormers or gables to achieve something other than your typical ranch style home. The home sizes we're building are in the 2500 sqft range. My design is complete they were simply discussing design at that point.

Also we weren't talking about the mini dormers shown in some of the examples above but more examples like the one below (along the lines of what Sombreuil mentioned above).

Point being if a home was designed like such and doesn't have an attic or light coming down why are these looked at negatively?

My take away is why not take that extra step for resale or future expansion potential.

Personally I don't think I'd want an attic or ever use it. That is what I have the basement for which is from what I understand a more cost effective way to expand as the HVAC is located there and the temps are more stable in the basement to begin with. Must be noted my area has many sloped lots so you have the opportunity for exposure to get daylight. I do like DLM's example of the overhead garage storage space for things like holiday decorations and other random low usage items.

>>>using false dormers or gables to achieve something other than your typical ranch style home<<<

To me, the massing is what it is; false dormers/gables are ornaments and don't change the basic nature of the house. (I also happen to like some contemporary ranch style homes.) But I am towards one end of the spectrum in terms of those kinds of preferences. As an alternative to the art analogy if I were styling a person I might use simple earrings but necklace/bracelets unlikely and definitely not a tiara. That's just me but I'm sure some folks can pull it off well!

Houses in our area typically don't have basements or storage attics, so consider yourself lucky.

Traditional Florida Architecture · More Info

Classic Revival · More Info

Cane River Retreat - Farmer Payne Architects · More Info

Wilton Whole Home Renovation · More Info

Sandy Bank Bay Villa, St. Kitts · More Info

Roberts Retreat · More Info

Harbor Hill · More Info

We have a large real gable dormer in the front of our house under construction. It has low ceilings, so it is not to be used for a bedroom, but it is a light filled place. It is conditioned space and will be finished. We also have a closet there that holds some HVAC equipment. We designed it as a cool spot for the kids to hang out. We are likely going to build a ship's ladder to got to the attic. We got this idea from some of the Suzanka books (away/play area for kids with interesting way to get to it that discourages adults from using the area). The roof there is stick built (is that the same as rafters?). From the outside, I find the gable breaks up the steep, large roof.

I am not brave enough to post the exterior of our home, as I am sure it would not be seen as attractive to many in the know, and don't want my house to serve as what not to do example in this thread. We did have it designed by an architect, but it was an addition/gut project. What we started with was not great, so likely it was much tougher to get aesthetically pleasing.

Carol

Carol, unless you're looking for feedback you shouldn't have any concerns with showing off our design. Its something you should be proud of.

Unfortunately I've seen others fearful to post their exteriors. That is my number one observation in the short few months I've been exploring this particular forum.

As for roofs, most new subdivisions require a min. 8 /12 pitch around here. You'd want this anyhow for snowshed. So to your point a large gable/dormer is desirable for many. Although in some of Oaktown's examples above one can appreciate the beauty and elegance created with simple forms.

In most jurisdictions in the US for a room to be finished and therefore habitable at least 50 percent of the floor area must have a ceiling height of at least 7 feet and no portion of the floor area may have a ceiling height of less than 5 feet.

An enclosed space could not be accessed by a ships ladder but an alternating tread stair would be allowed.

Can you give me an example of an alternating tread stair, JDS? No problem getting approval for our kid attic space (also shown on plan with ship's ladder). Some spots are close to 7 feet tall, others are shorter (sloped ceiling). It just states it cannot be used as a bedroom on the city building permit. We live in Ontario, Canada.

An alternating tread stair is difficult to describe so here is a LINK.

Thanks for the link, JDS. Had never heard of that before. Wouldn't be my first choice, but agree it's a nice alternative to a ladder. It's brilliant!

In industrial applications its called a Lapeyre stair for the company that manufactures them. The linked article says they are legal in Canada as "secondary stairs for convenience purposes".

They are not intended to be anyone's first choice. They are used when there is not enough space of a regular stair.

Those stairs are a perfect solution for us. Thanks JDS.

Carol

I like the look of dormers and am not bothered by whether they open up into the house. I agree with those who say that adding to the style of the house's exterior IS a function.

I do not care for the weird angles created by forcing them to allow light into a room.

An element of a building can be functional and also add style but that doesn't make them the same unless you change the meaning of these words.

Functional: "of or having a special purpose, or task; relating to the way in which something works or operates."

Style: "a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed."

The obvious function of a dormer is to let light and air into an upper story enclosed by a roof and to allow for emergency escape and rescue of the occupants.

If a dormer is sealed off from the interior of the house, it will no longer be functional but it can still add style to the house. There is nothing more basic or essential than this in the design of buildings.

Geegaw: a showy thing, especially one that is useless or worthless.

Is a non-functional dormer a geegaw?

whaas_5a: yup, pretty much I'd say--it fits the definition perfectly, IMO! :-)

No, I would say not. A geegaw is judged by its appearance. A fake dormer is not a showy thing nor does it appear to be worthless. As I said earlier it is just a missed opportunity and that is shameful to those who design buildings. I can understand why those who do not design buildings don't particularly care as long as the dormer looks good.

Now you see: one architect's geegaw is not another's! Who said we all thought alike? Some folks, including architects, are more tolerant of false things than others! :-) FWIW, all of the photos above, posted by Oaktown, of well designed single-storey homes (I believe) look very appealing and well proportioned without geegaw false (or even real) dormers. No false dormers, no stacked gable ends, no need for artificial cosmetics! There's something attractive and timeless about simple house shapes and simple roof shapes, creatively designed and built. Less can be more!

What about a dormer that is sealed off from the interior, BUT directs roof water away from an entry to the home?

One gabled dormer that protects an entry has a function. Most stock plans treat them like Lays potato chips or Russian nesting dolls though. Or rabbits. More is never automatically better. It's just more.

Why build a dormer rather than install a simple rain diverter over the entryway, designed for just that function?

There also appears to be some incorrect terminology being used by some lay people on this thread. Just because a home is a single storey does NOT automatically make it a ''ranch'' house. A ranch house is a specific design style, not a euphemism for one storey living. There are many other single storey home styles, many of them shown in examples above. Inspiration for a single level style with less emphasis on horizontal lines can be taken from cottages, bungalows, hacienda or even modern. Taking the streamlined horizontality of a traditional ranch and tackifying it with every bit of jewelry in your jewelry box is just ignorant and wrong. Attempting to make a single level look like a multi level home through faux ''décor'' elements is wasteful and counter productive to both function and form.

"Tackifying"...great term! I'm stealing it! :-)

Some folks certainly like their jewelry, scarves or whatever you want to call it. I would be hesitate to call them ignorant or wrong though.

I can't say this post was anything more to understand why a single false dormer can't be used to highlight the entry and break up the mass of a large steep roof without being looked at negatively. The one comment I agree with "as a layperson" is that its a miss opportunity for future expansion.

The question by the OP was, "...Why are dormers/false gables looked at negatively?..." By and large, the question is one of aesthetic principles or the study of beauty and taste. Aesthetics is "about interpreting works of art and art movements or theories", according to Wiki.

As such, this thread demonstrates "beauty remains in the eyes of the beholder", proving that there is no single, universal reason why dormers/false gables are looked at negatively. A number of the responses above, including mine, are simply based on the judgment of aesthetics learned over a lifetime of education and experience. Of course, everyone's education and experience is different and thus evaluation of dormers/false gables differs.

Of course, it's much easier to try to describe a process of evaluation and judgment (and reason) based on function, as opposed to aesthetics, since "function" is much more easily defined and understood. At it's simplest, function is whether or not something "works" or "doesn't work". IOW, function is binary, on-off, 0-1, works-doesn't work. In this scenario, a false dormer either works or doesn't work and is judged accordingly. Aesthetics, on the other hand, is not nearly so simple.

And some people simply prefer function over form. The extreme of this point of view, applied to the architecture of a house may be "since I live in the interior of a house, I don't care about the exterior...!"

Different strokes for different folks!

A scarf hides your neck wrinkles, and diamond earrings signal how wealthy you are, so there can be function in seemingly random accessorizing.

Like the restaurant chain that designs the exterior look like a lot of old buildings on a little street were joined together over the years as the restaurant grew and prospered...nobody is fooled, but there were lines out the doors last Friday night so obviously they don't care either. It's OK if you like it. And a good thing too, because otherwise life would be boring.

A house dormer should not be compared to a fashion accessory. It is surprising to discover how many homeowners think of the elements of architectural design as a series of consumer purchases and cannot appreciate the difference between function and style or a more thoughtful approach to design.

I see the decision to add a fake dormer as the failure of a designer to allow the exterior of a building to reflect and be inspired by the interior spaces, local climate, neighborhood cultural context and the structure of the house.

This consumer based approach is the favorite of developer-builders who are primarily concerned with maximizing marketability. It surprises and disappoints me when homeowners adopt this approach for their own homes.

Ooooh, "Tackifying", that IS a good one.

Since I don't wear scarfs or earrings, I like to metaphorize architecture with music; where all the musical instruments (architectural elements) make sounds (are seen) to create music (a unified design), complete with rhythm, rhyme, and melody. Some times the sound of a jews harp (false architectural element) is heard (seen) adding a delightful tickle to the symphony.

So fake in itself is not architecturally offensive? You can have fake architectural "jewelry" as long as it's architecturally authentic?

A dormer [even a fake one] can be historically accurate and correct, just a missed opportunity for some function, especially considering the expense is already being made.

I suppose window "lites" are also fake, but can be architecturally correct.

All hands to the lifeboats! It's suddenly getting deep and out of control in here...

*Grabs bucket. Follows Virgil.*

I think I would have responded to your friend in saying, It isn't wrong of them to be after a specific look. If adding an embellishment to the exterior of their home which serves no purpose makes them happy then so be it. Just don't call it good design, or design period. A false dormer is not a design element, it's attempting to compensate for a lack thereof.

Volumes have been written on this subject. I think the most simple and thoughtful explanation is about 450 years old and can be summarized by reading the first page, in the first chapter, in the first book of The Four Books of Architecture by Andrea Palladio.

"That work therefore cannot be called perfect, which should be useful and not durable, or durable and not useful, or having both these should be without beauty."

"Beauty will result from the form and correspondence of the whole, with respect to the several parts"

-Palladio

In driving around the back woods here in SC that many of the very modest little homes have dormers with vents instead of windows in them. These are old houses, and obviously built very cheaply. Is there a reason for these vented dormers? The attics in these little one story homes are too low to be usable living space. Is it an attempt at better attic ventilation? It's hard to believe that they are purely decorative, knowing how poor these rural areas have always been. A lot of these house look like they originally had the typical Craftsman porch columns, as the brick bases are still there, but after the upper wooden part rotted away, they were replaced with everything from 4X4's to decorative iron supports.

I'm guessing that the "vented dormers" may have been used to ventilate the hot, humid air from the interiors in the days before air conditioning and for folks who simply couldn't afford air conditioning. They were, in effect, roof-top ventilators for the house below.

Usefulness changes with time and culture. Palladio had to please his clients too.

By Iron Bishop - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1549811

That no doubt served as inspiration for this modest mid-town Toronto residence.

These people would pay you to not date their daughter.

Tastes changes with time and culture too. I wonder if Carmichael lives there?