|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: Roof and elevation |
    |
|
Hello,
I posted some options a while back and I decided on the attached floor plan.
I am working on the elevation/garage/roof.
I like the first 2 options because they have less square footage and I like the side load garage but I have a concern on how the roof looks. Is it ok to have a peak instead of a ridge? 99% of houses have a ridge.
Now, is it ok to have a tandem garare? I like #3 roof but my concern is resale for the tandem garage
I like the roof and nice front porch in the 4th option but the problem is the size grows by about 7o s.f.
I need some comments / help or guidence.
I am showing the roof dashed over the floor plan
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: hope this works better |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1863
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I prefer #1
The designer could eliminate the point by using a bit lower roof slope on the front and back. For example the pitch could be 10/12 on the sides and 9/12 on the front and back.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
csintexas,
thanks for your comment |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1073
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evidently a lot more work since you last posted. I guess you are trying to allow a grand central space to your house.
The roof looks incredibly overcomplex to me. I can understand the attraction of a side access garage, at least in those examples your house looks like a home rather than a parking lot. But I think it is a bit false and disingenuous to have the needless dormer on the garage elevation, it represents nothing and only serves to misrepresent what is going on inside the building.
In that sense, number 3 is far more appealing. The roof is not unnecessarily complex and your attention is drawn primarily to the front door which, in my view, should undoubtedly be the focus. There is still plenty of scope for simplifying the double ridge over the front porch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: Thanks |
|
|
Thank you Lekizz,
The option that you mention is the one with the 4 car garage, 2 cars are to park in tandem. Will the house have resale issues because of this?
Most of the houses in the area have 3 car garage.
I really do not have dormers, they are gables.
Thanks for your time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
starkca3
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like the number 3. You eliminate the issue of the over complicated roof and you give a pretty good balance on what the face of your house looks like. With the tandem parking, i would personally settle for a two car garage and utilize the extra space for something else. Tandem parking is too much of a pain... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Starkca,
I am attaching closer views of the drawings with the modified roof pitch as suggested
thanks again
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: opinions |
|
|
Any other comments, anyone?
188 visits and just 3 comments? sad.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I expect that the great majority of serious young architects are uninterested in exploring Eighteenth-Century architectural design; rather than applying "retro styling" to a brand-new home, they are happier exploring forms that honestly (and economically) reflect the realities of today's methods of construction, and look forward to convincing their future clients that a home can provide comfort, convenience and, yes, style without recourse to the pretense of an imaginary history.
Of course, there are exceptions to this trend, and I hope some other traditionalists will answer your query. In the meantime, thanks for exhibiting these crisp and handsome drawings.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SDR,
Thanks for your words!
We are in a very traditional town. No one buys contemporary houses here and we need resale value since we need to sell the house in about 6 years.
Thanks again |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1073
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I expect that the great majority of serious young architects are uninterested in exploring Eighteenth-Century architectural design |
That seems to me to be rather a gross generalisation, SDR. I would hope that all architects (and aspiring architects) are well versed in architectural history. It is a fundamental part of architectural education.
Personally I am not opposed to retro styles in principle. Architecture has moved beyond the times where 'good' buildings had to be 'honest'. I am a big fan of brick buildings (springtime's house looks like brick to me) and I also think it is a great idea to spend some attention on the front door or porch (as springtime has done). However, I don't think it is a good idea to add extra gutters, ridges, bells and whistles just to make a building more 'interesting'. IMO it makes better sense, economically and architecturally, if 'things' serve more than one purpose, that they are as they are for more than just a fanciful whim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
springtime
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lekizz,
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, the house is to be "full" brick.
I will make sure that I get rid of the bells and whistles.
The subdivision has some covenants (brick elevations, min. roof pitch: 8to12)
Contemporary design (wich I love) is not allowed, this subdivision was developed in a 15 acre farm inside a city and it is surrounded by the oldest neigborhoods in the city, wich takes advantage of preexisting infrastructure. This is a location-location-location area.
Could someone tell me what is his thinking on 2 car garage plus tandem garages in a house with about 25.00 s.f.?
Most houses in the area have 3 car garages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 605
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think you need more sq per person
it is 2008 and this is a old model, are you keeping up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
