I would lose the arches and replace the posts. Here's some inspiration:

Johnson · More Info

NAHB Certified Green Home · More Info

It definitely will start looking like the houses across the street with the character stripped.

What look do you think you will achieve without the arches?

If you lose the arches it will definitely look like a country house. Actually, there is nothing about your house that says country or dated.

Not blasphemous— midcentury ranches are fair game to do whatever you want, and many— like yours— were a mix of random architectural styles to begin with (…if it were an architect-design modernist MCM house, that would be blasphemy).

I agree the arches give it a dated ‘southern-country-club-inspired-home-built-by-a-doctor-in-the-50s’ vibe, and would remove them also. I’d do chunkier square columns with a substantial trim piece under the eave.

I would lose the arches and change out the posts to columns. You'll also want to soften it up a bit as right now the house looks like a commercial bank type building in my opinion.

I like your arches. But if you're not planning on selling any time soon, and they're driving you crazy, I don't think straightening the arches is a horrible act. It might even allow a very small amount of additional light into the house, not a bad thing.

The arches currently incorporate the headers that hold up your roof.

The soft arch mimics the curve of the bow window. Here is how the house will look if you eliminate the arch in the headers. It will cost a lot and I'm not sure you're gaining anything.

It's a detail that many homes no longer have.

If you're anxious to spend money, fix the steps They could look so much better. Install some landscape lighting and a minimal handrail.

Very nice landscaping & walkway!

You might consider painting them a darker complimentary color like a greenish blue teal before you take away the character... like this:

I would keep the arches and add railings and balusters, to turn the covered space into a cozier outdoor room. Right now it is too open to the street to feel private, based on the photos.

I think removing them makes the house bland.

It looks good with the arches, but maybe rethink the color scheme going on for simple upgrades, changing paint color for window trim, shutters, the siding color, light post, and focus on the landscaping can go a long way to give a more classic appeal.

I think the arches give the house character and individuality. It's very popular to remove both of these right now.

Think having an older house always presents a dilemma when it comes to remodelling and updating. I have a 1793 house in a historic district so the outside definitely has restrictions. On the other hand, despite doing a restoration rather than a renovation on many areas of the house, I like having a modern kitchen and bathrooms which are not original to the house.

In the case of your house, you‘re the final arbiter of what you do. Personally, I would keep the arches for the reasons listed above especially since they help hold up your roof and also give your house much character. Your choice.

I am in the camp that the arches look good and add charm.

I would paint the white soft light tan. Also add a railing. I would hate to go up or down those steps without one.

I think the blasphemy occurred when someone decided to add a front porch to a simple 1950s ranch home with the iconic linear lines and add bulky arches. If it were original to the home it wouldn't feel so out of place with the rest of the design.

I like how it looks with arches.

Of course it’s your house, your decision, but if it were me I’d keep the arches. I think they’re charming and give the house a lot of character. It’s a lovely home.

This is a 1962 house in Pa … the arches aren’t near as pronounced as yours, and the columns are different, but just showing an example of the style. Yours is a much better design!

I actually thought your house was built in the 1930s before reading otherwise.

The overhang roof will need support with new columns if you want the arches gone. I'd do it. You have a nice paneled ceiling which you can't see with the arches. Honestly, it would paint the brick, as well. And consider paint the ceiling boards soft blue.

Inspiration:

I think I see authentic shutters, with shutter dogs on your windows. Wow.

I much prefer the look of no arches. Given all the opinions it comes down to what you like. Go for it!!

IMO that house was nver meant to have the arches so remove them but remember they are suppoting the roof over the porch so will still need to be columns IMO this was a MCM ranch that someone tried to make into something else now IMO just simple columns will help. BTW no shutter either and in fact the windows are not original either but it will depend on budget how ar back you are willing to go

I don't really agree that somehow these arches were added later or that it's some kind of one-off subsequent blasphemy on a midcentury modern house. If blasphemy occurred its original blasphemy.

This is a midcentury ranch/rambler outgrowth of the slightly earlier "minimal traditional" architectural style and there are entire developments around here that had these modern shaped houses and floorplans tricked out with colonial revival details from day one. The "colonial" ranch with 6/6 windows and shutters and clapboard and brick combos with carriage lamps and often with a giant picture window somewhere is a legitimate architectural style from the America postwar era whether people like it or not. This is because most Americans embraced the modern floor plan but did not embrace the modernist style. It's the same phenomenon that led to the much uglier than this McMansion style as well.

There is a reason that William Levitt transitioned from houses like this in 1951

To this in 1958

even though they were much the same house under the skin. Particularly on the east coast, people did not embrace the modernist esthetic even though they wanted a modern floor plan.

Had to laugh at P.D. Schlitz, ".... the arches give it a dated ‘southern-country-club-inspired-home-built-by-a-doctor-in-the-50s’ vibe..."

Love the update in the 2nd photo by @Sabrina Alfin Interiors!

We have a ranch style - wanna be Colonial ?? - built by a doctor in 1964. We'll be removing these very same arches from the front porch asap!

I like the arches. If you can take them out and leave just the original beams depends on what's under the arches. If they are suitable, you still need a plan on how you want to finish the space left by the arch removal. That too might depend on what's under the arches.

IMO, the problem is more with the bright white paint than it is the arches. I would do as Kelly Jones suggested up thread and change the paint color. A blue/ green, subtle sage green--something that complements the brick color as opposed to the loud white contrast. Much less expensive than tearing out and rebuilding the porch supports. Tearing out & rebuilding is going to cost a not insignificant amount of money. For a 50/50 result--where about half of the people will think it is an improvement & half will disagree--I'd fork over for paint and keep the rest of the $$ in my pocket.

I don't disagree that there was a lot of mixed architecture during the mid century time, but if you look closely at the 2nd picture the OP posted it looks like the porch in front of the door is a solid slab of cement and may even have brick on the front - can only see a small piece, but that was not uncommon. The remainder of the floor is not a solid pour. Doesn't seem likely that they would have done this if it they didn't extend the original front porch. Also the roof line changes over the front porch. Most of the homes with a front porch at that time had a roof that angled from the ridge line to the front of the porch or a sled roof. They wouldn't have done the steeper angle and then flat.

I think the awkward aspect of the colonnade is the big collar type thing right under the arch. The entire column should be more or less that width, I think.