I like with.

I don't know about a modern look but in my opinion looks very much like a commercial office building. If this is what you are going with I would say with the dormers.

Symmetry seems to play a major role with the front and rear elevations. The side elevations appear to have been ignored. The dormers add visual interest to the front, even if they are in the roof truss/attic area.

Thanks for the feedback.

Ha Millworkman, were you eavesdropping on our design meetings? We definitely asked for a "commercial office building" look for our home!

To help for anyone else wanting to weigh in, consider the attached photos as our design inspiration, white brick, black casement windows (with dividers similar to 2nd photo), grey shingle roof with grey metal roof accents.

Have you seen a rendition without gables in front? Since the main roof is hipped, I think the front would look nicer/more cohesive with hipped all around.

The gables detract from the entrance, giving it a more McMansion feel. I only mentioned it because you desired to lessen the association. :-)

Virgil Carter Fine Art,
Do side elevations typically get as much attention with respect to symmetry? This is our first time having a home designed, so we didn't think to ask that question.

Looks much better with dormers. Looks more substantial and "grand"

"Ha Millworkman, were you eavesdropping on our design meetings? We definitely asked for a "commercial office building" look for our home!"

Well the I guess you would say you got you asked for. I still say yes on the dormers and after looking at it more agree with Virgil.

I am sorry but I don't think that your design hits the mark with your inspiration photos with anything other than your planned colors.

In each of the inspiration photos the roof structure is NOT front and center and it's nearly invisible in the first. The houses you show are using the entire interior volumes and look rather compact with nice size and scale to the features (like the really nice large dormers that are large enough to be useful in pic #3 - but your architect added some pointy small ones that are entirely out of scale for your house and the roof structure is REALLY LARGE and overwhelming in the hip roof version - a key indicator of a McMansion. I much prefer the smaller look of the roof in the first drawing.

hnelson asked if it was usual or important to look at the design of the sides of the house.

My answer is yes, it's always important, unless, like the photos you show, you have a very small urban lot and only a five-foot setback to the property line. Then, assuming your neighboring houses have similar configuration, it's really important to analyze and explore how all of the openings on the sides of the house relate to the houses on the other side of the property line fence (unless it really doesn't matter to you if their bedroom window aligns with your bathroom window).

Part of the challenge here, of comparing elevation drawings with photos in perspective, is that one almost never really sees a building as if it was an elevation. It's always in perspective, and that perspective changes depending on where the eye line is relative to the horizon. In other words, in the first and third photos, the eye line is much lower than the eye line in the second photo. The lower the eye line, the less effect the roof has, and the greater effect of those element which are at or near the eye line, i.e., doors, windows, planters, retaining walls, stairs, landscaping, etc.

FWIW, I really like the second and third photos, even though they present a somewhat different architectural character. The first photo, however, is a "block buster", with size, scale and elements so muscular and strong that the house simply overwhelms and dominates it neighbors, and perhaps the neighborhood. It truly is more commercial in nature than residential. This is why communities form architectural review boards (usually after something like this happens, rather than before).

This is the cue for Worthy to post some photos of truly offensive houses...

Thanks much Jannicone for your comments!

I agree with all of your comments. Regarding overall design, there is some context. If I could design anything I wanted not considering local architecture, I would either choose modern scandinavian farmhouse or a west coast modern. However, we have learned from experience that if we ever need to sell in a soft market, it is best to not be the "odd-ball" house. No exaggeration, 98% of homes in this area are red brick (many local brick manu) and basically 100% traditional architecture. Here it is not only more expensive to use different siding, it is also less desirable. Hence we've decided to go with a traditional, fit-in-the-neighborhood design with an updated color palette. There are a few homes around town that have done similar and it seems to work within the area.

Regarding the roof - we definitely agree with your comments. We want to minimize the scale of the roof, but our builder, designer, etc is recommending against it and we are not yet confident in the real estate norms in the area to know if we'll be making a bad decision. The are quite a few older "estates" in the area that have the simpler roof design, but the newer homes have more complex roof lines (considered McMansion-y) and I think it may be looked at as a benefit of a newer home in the area. The dormers are intentionally small because they are non functional - they are in the attic and we will never expand living space there. But just typing that reinforces our own opinion that we should probably not include them - I'm not a fan of non-functional design details. And your comments help in that we're not totally alone!

Hi Virgil Carter Fine Art,

thanks for your answer. Setbacks are 8' and from what I've seen in the neighborhood, homes/lots are designed to maximize the utilization of the space and the side views are not designed to be admired... so ours will fit in. :) We will definitely drive around again to make sure.

There isn't an architectural review board here, so we are working on our own recognizance and trying not to "overwhelm and dominate" our neighbors!! But definitely part of our consideration for the roof and dormers.

Play with making the center dormer wider than the flanking dormers. This will add a little more interest and help divert rain water from the roof from falling in front of the entrance. Match the other roof pitches. And yes all sides of a home needs the same attention.

I see virtually no relationship to the inspiration houses.

As for the fake dormers, how oh how did our ancestors so not get their

value!

18th Century English country home. Ripe for an HGTV makeover!

********

We want to minimize the scale of the roof, but our builder, designer, etc is recommending against it.

Soaring historically accurate hip roofs have all but disappeared in our GTA only because of municipal height restrictions enacted to "protect" the owners of old bungalows so they won't feel "threatened" and overshadowed by people with larger homes.

However, if you do prefer less roof, consider gambrel/mansard roofs.

Dumbarton Oaks, 1800 (centre bay)

English country home

Bradbourne House, Kent

******

Letting side and rear fenestration fall where it may is a sure sign of McMansion.

******

Projecting either the outer bays or the middle bay, plus larger windows in the outer bays, would add interest.

ok, i should have specified, those photos are inspiration for our color palette. local architecture is inspiring/ shaping our design.

The dormers, as they are pictured look 'fake'. Also, in cold climates (with snow and ice) they can be a source of ice dams, etc.

The office building look is coming from the factory ganged windows laid out with no variation, like a tilt-up. This is the cheapest way to build, but it's dead ugly. The side elevations make things worse, because they have no rhyme or reason at all-- it's just chaos. A better approach is symmetrical, or at least balanced, elevations that use several different sizes of windows, maybe even different shapes. Three to five different windows should be plenty. Repeat these shapes throughout the design, to get a satisfying unity and variety.

I understand living in an area with brick house after brick house when you prefer something else. I really like your inspiration colors. I thought of this house (newer house in an area of 100+ year old houses) when I saw yours. Maybe it'll give you some ideas on the taller roof, different window shapes, dormers, etc.

Like the inspirations. Do you have to have a roof like that? For wind or whatnot?

Worthys first roofline is what you need.

I'm particularly fond of the crenellations over the entry on Worthy's 18th Century house. They always come in handy for defending against marauding zombies and the like. The burning oil pots can be stored in the adjacent attic when not needed.

So, in order to get Worthy's roofline, in that first photo, would the OP need a U or I shaped house, with a cross gable joining the two end gables? Or is there a way to get it, without changing the floor plan?

(Can you tell that the mixed roof types are bugging me? lol)

Hello One Devoted Dame,

I saw your note regarding using a hip roof on the front and your thoughts on how to get the roof line from worthy's first inspiration photo...Regarding worthy's photo, isn't it a hip roof on the main part with 2 gables on the sides to form a U shape? That's what we have although our U seems shallower - the sides come out 7' from the front door (perspective of the drawing may not have clearly depicted this). We also have the covered front porch, which is the only thing I requested architecturally on our southern home. Perhaps the covered porch is throwing things off?

I haven't requested a modified drawing from our architect yet regarding potential hip roofs, but I made my own version. Is it better with hip roofs on the arms of the U?

Inspiration photo #2 is a stunner with it's large steel windows. Why not go in that direction? It's a classic, stylish look that would not be out of place in the most traditional, conservative neighborhood, but it has style, not pretentiousness. Doing something like that will meet your own taste and avoid the McMansion look or commercial office bldg look (the local Board of Realtors has one almost identical to your plans!).

Back to the drawing board...

I like this direction better and then please play around with window sizes and shapes - the windows in the "wings" look like they were doled out grudgingly and that someone had a stock size they were trying to use. Managing the size, shape and location of the fenestration is an art - and in each of your inspiration photos, the glass is a MUCH larger percentage of the facade that you show here. It's one of the things that makes the black framed windows so impressive - and unless you increase the size of yours - it will look odd. Also - increasing the glass and making it more impactful will draw your eye away from the roof.

Ooooooh, see, I like that roof much better!

Edited to add: The reason I went with the hipped suggestion is because, since the rear and sides all showed a hipped roof, the front wings seemed off to me as the only gables. Hip roofs also seem more "modern" to me, so I was trying to be loyal to the style.

And I totally agree with Janni... Notice how, on all of your inspiration photos, as well as Worthy's, the windows are all the same size and shape? If it were me, I would like to explore having the smaller twin windows in the wings replaced with the larger windows in the center section. This may likely require floor plan alterations, since you don't want too much wall or too little, as it relates to the main part of the house. My goal would be to reduce visual clutter, so that your entrance becomes the star of the show. :-)

I'm not an architect, I'm just an average chick learning all this stuff slowly. I invite anyone to jump in and tell me I'm crazy, lol.

Ok, so I've modified a drawing (trying to gather our thoughts before we go back to the designer for the official modification) - it reflects what we were planning to do with colors and window dividers in addition to feedback received. Please give me your (gentle!!) feedback.

I think you are starting to get there! I am not thrilled with the wings, but can't put my finger on why (likely too much wall but maybe not - maybe just lightly wider windows or some other elements to each side....) anyway- I think the middle section is lovely, and it's drawing your eye much lower with the roof playing a supporting role here and not the 'main attraction'

Can we see the floor plan? It would help to see how much the wings bump out and if you can get away with only one window at the wings. I prefer the hipped roof but I think the ridges at the wings should be a bit lower.

We'd have to get creative with the floor plan, but I think it can be done (one of the first things I checked). What do you mean by the "ridges"?

jannicone, I understand what you mean with the bulk of the wings, but unfortunately we need them with the floor plan. Do you think lanscaping (specifically a tree to the front side of each wing) will help soften the bulk? We haven't yet met with our landscape designer.

That had been one of my first thoughts, if we couldn't see a floor plan and you couldn't change the width of each wing, to put some nice tall Cypress type trees (or whatever tall skinny evergreens grow in your area) on each side of those windows.

Where's Lavender Lass when you need her??? :-)

In your last drawing, the ridge of the wings match or are at the same level as the main roof.

In this pic, you can see how the wing's roof is lower than the main roof (as I suggest), and it still keeps all overhangs at the same level.

I posted this pic only to explain the ridge question as I know you want to give your house a more clean and modern look. This house is too "plateresque" but I do like the treatment and texture they added to the wings and the proportions - the dormers are an overkill.

I agree with Jannicone, and I am thinking that the reason is that your wings are too plain.

The primary issue with the design, even the most recent elevation above, is the overall consistent bulk and massing, which is unbroken and unchanging from the front elevation, resulting in a heavy and bunker-like appearance. I assume the rear is similar.

In Naf_Naf's photo above, the change in the roof ridge lines is a big help in breaking up the profile of the roof and developing a more residential scale.

I believe the other issue to address is the fenestration pattern--the size, placement and rhythm of the windows. The more similar all of the windows appear, the more massive and bulkier the appearance of the façade. In the photo above, for example, there are clearly different sized and proportioned windows within the symmetrical building façade.

I think if the windows in the wings were separated from one another, the first floor windows were taller than the second floor windows and they all had a vertical proportion, it would make a substantial improvement. I would also strive to have the windows in the center section of the first floor taller than the second floor.

If one has to cover up the architecture with landscaping, we can safely say the architecture is a failure!

Good luck with your project!

Okay, so just for my own education, is it nearly always preferable to have clearly rectangular windows (taller than wide) rather than square? Tall rectangular windows are my personal preference, but I don't know if it's a "thing," or just me.

This is why folks go to architectural school, lol....

"I think if the windows in the wings were separated from one another, the first floor windows were taller than the second floor windows and they all had a vertical proportion, it would make a substantial improvement".

Was just going to type the same thing. And the separated 2nd floor windows slightly wider than your original drawing.

Are these casements or double hungs as the grid and window sizing proportions look way off to me?

This house seems to have a similar main massing to hnelson's drawing, I think it looks pretty nice. Different materials, window sizes and roof pitch, though.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Atherton/460-Walsh-Rd-94027/home/2100278

fixed and casement

what is a typical / good height for windows for 10' and 9' ceilings? We have 6' tall windows on the first floor with 10' ceilings and 5' tall window/9'ceiling. Is this typical/proportional? If the windows are a foot taller it would be easier to achieve the vertical proportions.

Didn't realize how much difference vertical scale on the windows would make, but I do like it better. comments on either of these?

(I didn't anticipate so much "constructive" feedback (i.e. disgust), but I feel we are in a much better place (although I know not perfect) - I just need to get the local team on board.)

getting there!!!! I like the first rendition / change - but still think that the windows need to be larger. In most of the cool homes that worthy posted- there's simply not that much space between each repeating window.

Much improved--congratulations! Perhaps apply the same treatment to the rear elevation? Is there anything that can be done for a more pleasing composition of windows and other openings on the sides?

What is that running across the two front elevation studies? A hedge? Stone? Scuffed up cement plaster?

Thanks! will start addressing the back and side elevations as well. Had preliminary discussions with our builder and real estate agent (for market reference) and they're telling me if we ever have to sell we need to be grander to get our money back - the hip roof in the front is a no-go (too plain) and we should use the dormers. I'm afraid we're in an area where more is more. Ugh. This house is already within the top 5% of market for price so we feel we can't push it too much with respect to local tastes. But I am personally much happier with the most recent drawings. We'll do our best to land on a good balance.

They are b&w shrubs - just because the designer drew in a busier landscape in the front than we intend to use. I don't know what we'll end up using, but it will be simple and orderly.

There should be a law similar to "Location, location, location." It could be "Simplify, simplify, simplify."

Most dormers make me think of poor servants freezing or sweltering in tiny rooms under the roof.

Oh, no. :-(

Well, I wish you luck. :-) I hope that, whatever y'all end up with, that you really love it.

as well as Worthy's, the windows are all the same size and shape

Look again at Bradbourne House and Dumbarton Oaks.

********

Now, wings or the centre bay forward to break up the bulk, as suggested above.

Forget the dormers, just put a gable over the center window.

It still looks off.