The design of the house seems off. The overall shape, the windows, the portico -- they do not work well together.

Was there a specific period you were trying to emulate?

Its very nice stone in the sample. What would look fake, IMO, is if it is applied in a non-realistic fashion. PPF has a very experienced eye. What style is the neighborhood, and do other homes utilize stone / brick?

PPF, here are some other homes in town. There is not a particular time period we are going after. Just trying to fit into the area and not look like the house was just built or mcmansion style. I should correct my previous post, we are not in a historic district of the town. It is a rural town surrounded by NYC suburbia that has a mix of 1800s farm houses up to 10,000+ sq ft homes. What would you recommend changing to make it work well together?

I think the stone doesn't go well with the fancy porch detail with the columns... as the modern farm house vertical siding doesn't either. Can you do a painted brick to get the texture part you are looking for? I think it would be a better choice with the dormers, the symmetrical windows and the columns on the porch.

The 3D renderings I got are not completely accurate. Here is the drawing of the home.

didn't upload the first time

What a lovely home!

I LOVE the stone can they center the 2nd story three windows?

A historic home would never have that asymmetrical front section ( facade with front door). All fenestration should be centered on the wall - i.e., shifted to the left.

The entry portico is all wrong. It just looks off. Both of them. Heavy and out of scale. What are we going for?

I would see about changing the front entry, using the same roofing material which would pull that element in and also help to lower the whole profile. it seems like there is too much going on. I like the stone choice, but personally I would go all horizontal siding.

Jan, should we keep the same design and just reduce the size of the portico?
take a look at the drawing I posted, we widened the section of the house that bumps out and it's now right next to the portico which I think improves the symmetry. We were thinking it would look like this

Beautiful home plan. The widened "bump out" in the drawing is a big improvement. I prefer the whole house in siding. I am concerned the farmhouse accent siding on the garage may look dated very soon. I feel the elevation with stone on just the front elevation looks pasted on. Think about just adding stone on the front porch / steps and stone across the building's water table (foundation /basement level) to give you an accent yet keep the house classic. I love the inspiration pics with the whole house in stone - have you considered it (pricey, I know?)?

In the original rendering, the bump-out is much too narrow. I would like the house better with no bump-out.

And I really, really dislike the dormers that look like pimples on a roof.

They look bad.

They serve no purpose other than to let light into the attic.

The dormers add considerable extra expense to a build (more materials, need for flashing, more windows...)

The dormers make re-roofing more difficult and expensive as well as create potential problem areas w/ bad flashing jobs and roof leaks. Difficult & dangerous to perform routine maintenance like caulking, painting trim, etc.

Need for extra window coverings plus the delightful (not) job of cleaning more windows.

If those skinny dormers open into interior living space, the fact that they are so narrow seems like the space would feel awkward.

The stone doesn't work for me. I vote for all siding. The stone makes it look like you smashed a more classical home (Georgian-ish) between two farmhouses. Like an Oreo cookie. :) But, I get what you're going for, and I like your inspiration photo.

If you're going for a more classical look, then you really need to revise the entrance location and the spacing of the windows and dormers. Everything should be symmetrical. Imagine a line right through the middle of the brick wall, then put the door & portico centered on that line. The windows and dormers should be equally spaced, and symmetrical about the center line. As drawn, the elevation is unbalanced - it pulls my eyes to the right side dormer, rather than the entrance.

I'd rethink your revised portico as well. It seems too elaborate for the elevation.

Hope that helps!

I like the stone, and I saw many houses in rural NH and NY where we used to live that were exactly those old farmhouses with additions, even off-centered ones like that. That said, as others have suggested, those were typically a lot less elaborate. Those more elaborate ones would have been a straight-up center hall colonial from the get-go. I do like the widened bump out and change to the portico. Makes it looks a bit more realistic, though I might bring the supports down to single columns. I think the stone can work as long as it's wrapped around the corner and right up to the edge of the siding like it was always there.

Thank you for the image H B.

After reading the comments here and giving it more thought we are going to do all siding.

Maybe a little stone around the mudroom entrance?

The original idea with the bump out was to give the house an "evolved over time" look similar to many of the 100+ year old homes in our town. Is it really that bad?

Many of the newer homes in our area, including a few down the street from me have a center front door with 2 windows on either side and 5 windows across the top...just like the rendering that H B made. As much as we like that look, we didn't want our house be a clone of those. But I definitely agree that will improve the symmetry.

Here is a simplified version of your house. The scale is correct width wise, but I guessed at other dimensions, like ceiling heights.

This could be fancied up, but I like to start simple.

Thanks PPF. The finished ceiling heights are 9'.

When you say fancied up, are you talking about trim and detail? and leave the roof lines and windows alone?

The original idea with the bump out was to give the house an "evolved over time" look similar to many of the 100+ year old homes in our town. Is it really that bad?

Nothing wrong with the idea of building a new house that looks old and evolved over time, but it's key that the additions and changes that you design into the plan work with the design of the original house, and are based on what someone might have really done to the house.

I would start with a realistic plan for a period correct house, then evolve it over time, thinking as if you were adding on or changing something as would have been done at the time.

If your house started out with a symmetrical, flat front, then it would not have an extension stuck on the front. It would have been extended to the side, like the wing shown on the right, or to the rear.

In the case of your house, it might have been built as I show above, but without the right side wing.

In any case, it would have several fireplaces.

Maybe it had a wrap around porch ...

I prefer all siding, no stone. I also think it looks a lot better without the 3 skinny dormers

When you say fancied up, are you talking about trim and detail? and leave the roof lines and windows alone?

I'll suggest the key is to be true to a specific style. Don't mix and match house parts.

Everything might change, maybe dormers would have been the norm, maybe the windows need fancy trim, but things should be added or taken away purposefully.

You say “historic” neighborhood. Is it so designated? If so, there will be rules you will have to follow before you dig one shovel of dirt.

https://www.nps.gov/Tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-construction.htm

The first photo looks very good. The 4th photo from the top also looks good. Both portray a house evolving over time. Good luck!