Good info in the above message. If it wasn't really important to me to be able to close it off I prefer the open look. But I almost always go with the simple look.

i like the french doors now that there is more unity between the multiple sets showing. As far as the arches, i have both in my home. My family room has two sets of arches with columns flanking the sides of each. One arch leads to the kitchen and the other leads to the foyer. the leaves my family room open to the kitchen and entrance of my home. I have my french doors between the foyer and my kitchen. i wanted a bit of separation when entering my house and the kitchen which is head on and can be seen from outside on the road. Honestly though, i keep one door open all of the time. Its too much of a pain for traffic flow to keep it closed.

i think that the set of french doors with the sidelights look best in the renderings.

While you mull over palimpsest's excellent questions, here are a few more things to think about.

Because you've expressed a strong preference for doors for many good reasons from the beginning, I'm voting for doors in this space. And my vote is for #3 because 2 doors is a cleaner, simpler look.

I know you said that one benefit of the 3 door configuration was that one of the doors could open upon the stationary door and not take up any wall space. That is a plus but I wonder if you have thought about what that would look like. The lights of the stationary and open doors won't line up: will that bother you?

Also, if you open both doors, one would be against the door and the other against a wall, creating an unmatched look. You have a lot of symmetry going on in what I've seen of your home so, if possible, I think you should opt for symmetry here, too. In #3, two doors open - or even just one door open - against your walls would look less busy and more symmetrical, IMO, especially if the DR doors open against the FR walls. I'm assuming that the exterior doors open inward and against the walls, too.

However, if you still want to be able to open doors without taking up wall space, then I vote for #4. I think open or closed, this one gives more symmetry to the space than #2. The only downside is that this option won't allow you to have as large an opening as you'd have with #3.

I also vote for changing the DR door regardless of what you do for the kitchen opening. What a difference it makes to have the DR door lights more closely match the exterior door lights. It makes the whole space look more coordinated.

PS. I like your home's arched openings!

Thank you all for your careful consideration. To answer some questions:

Palimpset, I would not do anything to change the original architecuture of the home. It's very pretty and the arches without millwork are appropriate to the home. The photos here reflect the move-in state of the home. Since the original kitchen also repeated in a smaller scale the two larger arches, I would want to retain them.

In terms of what's more important, openness or the ability to close it off, I think I have moved toward openness and DH to closing.

Seeing the changes, I am in agreement with Lisa, either open with casings, or #3. The architect had the original idea of 3 doors, and probably part of this was due to the fact that we would use the wall that backed on the dining room for entertainment unit storage. By moving that storage to the long wall, it opened the possibility for two doors.

Please nobody tell me you don't like the storage on that wall! (just kidding - if it's bad, let me know)

I like the original arches too...if you have two coming into the kitchen that are remaining, perhaps you don't need any more. I think they can coexist peacefully.

My personal take would be if left open, an elliptical arch to relate the family room to the rest of the house, if closed, FD 3.

Here are two companies that might be of interest.

BH Davis Company-curved millwork
Trustile Doors-lots of configurations including common arch paired doors.

Here is a link that might be useful: BH Davis Company

I really like french doors #3. It's much less busy looking that trying to have door panels or the two smaller doors and two side lights. Since you have expressed a strong desire to have the doors, I think #3 is your best looking option. I do like the way the opening looks with just the casing too though, although the arches you had in the previous thread are in keeping with other arches in your house.

French doors #3 if you have the room or open+frame.

I like french doors #3 too. #4 looks fine too, but I wouldn't spend the extra money and space on the side lites.

Incidentally, we have a 1930s arch in our kitchen just like those (though added to our older house in a 1930s remodel) that coexists beautifully with our more traditional woodwork, so I think that's fine. (In fact, when it was put in our house still had french doors just like those in the adjacent DR...sadly gone now!) I wouldn't put curved moulding on those, though, because---as you note---the moulding-less arches are very period and just right as they are.

The comments and questions here were so excellent and made me consider several things that had not occured to me at all.

We've been playing with option #3 (two doors) and with the left door open (when facing into the kitchen) and allowing about 5'4" of opening, there is about 8" of wall space between the sliding glass doors and the french door. DH thinks its not an optimal look and that perhaps the 2 stationary and 2 movable might be better. Don't know if anyone can imagine this space or if we need more to post pics. I would prefer the nice open space of two doors, but am not sure if he is right.

Can any of you comment on this w/o pics? Many thanks.

Is his objection because he thinks not enough wall shows or because he thinks the doors might hit each other? Oh, wait, never mind, I see the door to the deck either swings to the left or is a slider. So he must feel that not enough wall shows?

How big an opening will you have with #4? I wouldn't go too small. I'm swapping out the both kitchen doors - one to DR, one to hallway - because they aren't large enough openings (fridge delivery was via backdoor, same with couch and a few other furnishings). Wish I'd thought of this when we built. It would have been much cheaper to have built with larger openings. But it's only money, right? ha

But back to the topic. If it were me and I was choosing between open door, little wall showing of #3 and smaller opening of #4, I think I'd go with #3. I think I'd be less bothered by a narrow bit of wall showing than by a narrow-ish opening every single time I stepped through it. I think it'd be especially noticeable when you entertain in the FR, too. But that's me.

We tried as best as possible to show the doors and how they will look when open.

Can you us your comments now based on the images?

Thanks.

2x 32" Doors

2x 22" Doors + 2x 12" Fixed

I like how the 2 - 32" Doors look when they are closed and open. The smaller doors....I only like them when they are open.

Thanks ccoombs. I like the 2 - 32" doors closed but worry they look hulking open and out of proportion in relation to the doors left and right. I'm not in love with the smaller ones, thinking maybe busy closed and too small when opened.

I feel like I'm making everyone, including people on GW, (and of course myself), crazy!

No worries, lucretzia, I was already crazy. ;-)

Tough choice but I think I'm with ccoombs on this one: I prefer #3 over #4. However, I'm glad to see that the opening for #4 is more generous than I thought it might be. I was thinking you'd divide the space by 4 and end up with only a 32" opening. That is larger than most interior doors (at least in my house) but I think 44" opening is a better width.

Do you think the doors will be mostly open or mostly closed? What is your higher priority: a more gracious opening or less wall space required for open doors? Will you hang artwork on those walls, knowing that it might be blocked some or most of the time or will you leave the walls bare? And are you okay with either option? We can give you our opinions but you're the ones who will live in the space so you'll need to decide this one on more than looks.

Thanks for the feedback and questions. Lisa, are you saying that the two door is more gracious in look, but eats up possibly valuable wall space?

I'm thinking it's a mixed bag in terms of how often the doors will be left open or closed. Frequently closed during the months the house is heated, open when not. Closed with company while cooking; open with family.

I was planning on artwork. I guess it's not optimal if it's blocked some of the time but could live with that.

I think my major concern is proportion and graciousness. My purpose for the doors is to give the option of separating and opening the space when needed, while still allowing for plenty of light and ease of flow, and doing so in a fashion that is charming and appropriate to the space and the house.

One other thought I had and perhaps it is really tacky or impossible to do or both because no one here suggested it is folding glass doors.

Sorry for not being clear. I mean gracious as in it's a large, inviting entry into the room. It's more feel than look. Think of how you feel approaching a house with a wide entry, wide enough for two people to walk side by side versus a narrow path that requires single file formation. One is better for company, the other for solitary pursuits. Does that make sense?

As I wrote, 44" is still a nice-sized opening, certainly more than I have for all but two doorways in my house. The more I live with narrow doorways between one living space and another, the more I dislike them. I like doors - we like to close doors to block noise - but I also wish our kitchen doorways were wider than 29" and 27". And they will be after the remodel!

The 2-22s won't look as nice as they do in your picture--you'll see the sidelights and grills behind them in real life.

When we have a large group of people over, they always seem to stand in doorways to carry on conversations. We have a 40" wide doorway (no door) between the living room and eating area next to the peninsula in the kitchen. There is always someone standing there, and I wish I'd made that door wider.

If you really don't like the look of the 2-32" doors, can you make the doors the same size as the doors into your dining room, but with no sidelights, so that when they are open they don't cover up quite as much of your wall as the 32s? I really like just two doors better, since it's less busy.

Anne

The doors into the dining room are only about 17" each, so that size doorway would be too small. I'd like the opening as large as possible. I want everything!! :-)

Perhaps I should take another look at our architect's orignal plan of the three doors of equal width, one stationery. There was a good comment here though about it possibly being too asymetrical for my space, as one door opened against a wall, and the other onto the stationery door. Also as Anne mentions here, they also suggested that the lites wouldn't line up in that scenario either.

Anne, your comment about people in the doorway is one reason I want doors - to keep them out altogether when I want.

That was me who made a comment about the asymmetry of the 3 door set-up. Frankly, I'm not fond of that look but it's not my home so my opinion is certainly not as important as yours. I'm curious why you are going back to this one. What does it gain you over the 2 center doors with 12" wide sidelights?

lucretzia, do you have time to give yourself a break from thinking about this? I find that when I get bogged down and can't make a decision, a break is a good thing. Nothing changes while I ignore something but I find that I'm able to make a decision quickly when I return to whatever it is.

Lisa, I realized after I reread last night that it was you that made such a great and thorough analysis with so many good points. Thank you so much. It has helped us a great deal.

The 3 door gives a bit bigger opening than the 2 dr with sidelights and I felt looked less busy. However, I did not test this one visually as to how they would look open and you make excellent points for me to consider.

You also have a point about giving myself a break but we are holding up construction. I think the best compromise is to leave it open with casings for now with the ability to add either the 2 door or 3 door later. I think the 2 + 2 sidelights involves a different framing. At least we can move forward and I can see how the space looks finished and whether I feel the need for the doors at all. As I'm sure you can tell, I have a hard time visualizing.
Now I can spend time obsessing over different issues and put off that one for another day.

Enormous thanks to you, Palimpsest, Ccoombs, and everybody who offered their very good opinions.

Sorry to sound a discordant note, but I personally don't like the French doors at all. I think an arch would be perfect.

From the kitchen, the doors seem unnecessary, but more importantly, they would interfere with light unless you added the sidelights, which, as several folks have said, will look pretty busy IRL.

But it's the view from the FR that really makes me dislike the doors. Sometimes it's easy to overlook the obvious, and here, the obvious is the fact that you'll have wall after wall after wall of French doors. Together they form an overwhelming block of glass and muntins and frames and grid shapes, with no easy way to soften them (these aren't windows and won't have soft, poofy window treatments).

I think they could look even odder IRL. Either you'll have a shade or something on the patio door, and nothing on the others, or you'll leave all three doors nude, which will give you one black door at night and two others that have indoor light behind them. They will look similar, but wrong.

Plus, in reality, I find that people actually keep interior french doors closed far less often than they think they will.

I think the arch avoids some of these problems. It pierces that corner so that the FR won't feel so much like an isolated addition or a 3-season porch that's been tarted up--instead, it would be connected to the house. And having the curved arch lets you break up that infinite repetition of rectilinear grid, grid, grid without having to add anything. Finally, it will connect the FR and the kitchen with the rest of the house architecturally by repeating a motif you already have.

Sorry to add confusion--just my $.02!

Marcolo,
Palimpset also recommended an arch if the space were to be left open. Have you read all the other threads on this topic? I think the post with the arch images got mixed with another post and is unable to be found anymore. The opening is 6 feet. If the arch is smaller than that I would think it would darken the space more than french doors. The two large arches in the house are 4 feet. How large would you suggest making the arch?

The opening is 6 feet.

Lucretzia, have you tried a rendition w/ a set of French doors in a 4' opening? That is, reducing the size of the opening to match the other set of interior FD's? Or a 5' pair?

Back to the options--Visually, I like #3 better. Functionally, I prefer #4 because the open doors don't intrude into the room space as much.

OTOH, if you're going with the traditional classic French door design, all of those panes of glass are a real pain to clean plus dusting all the wooden dividers. Adding the side lights multiplies that chore.

I think you will find that the doors will stand open more than they will be closed. It is a pain in the neck to have to open a door every time you enter or leave the kitchen. Just from a practicality standpoint, I would prefer to have an open entry there. It gets pretty heavy looking with three sets of doors so close together. Having said that, if you must have doors, go with # 3. But again, I think the open look is preferable. Good Luck! It is always tough making these decisions! So much to think about!

I actually like ci_lantro's idea of making the opening 4' wide and doing a set of double 24" doors in there. The open doors would be much less obtrusive.

If an arch is used, I don't think you can say in advance that it has to be much narrower than the opening. You'd have to look at a rendering.

That's because what we're calling an "arch," isn't. It's square at the sides, and square at the top. It simply has rounded corners, and that detail can be used on any width of opening.

If it were a real arch, that wouldn't be true, because the radius of a true arch would have to adjust to fit the opening.

So I would draw up "arches" in several widths--matching the existing corner treatments as much as possible--and see how they look.

I would hate to shorten the opening from 6' to 4'. I realize everyone has a different opinion and I should go with my own, but truthfully, it just confuses me to hear these very persuasive arguments that go every which way.

I'm now thinking of eliminating the doors and going with either the arch or the cased opening. I will post some arched options and hope I am not banished from the GW.

Posts from palimpsest and marcolo are making me reconsider the arch. However, the placement of a required beam/post is throwing off the look of any opening from the inside of the kitchen.

I'm reposting some renderings of arches that create various entryway openings and side wall widths.

Can you render an opinion? (I swear I am almost finished!)

3" wall width

4" wall width

5" wall width

6" wall width
{{gwi:1587901}}

7" wall width

8" wall width

I like the 4-6" wall width, there may be practical reasons to choose any of these.

I think since this references the radiused openings that exist elsewhere in your house, it would be appropriate.

As I said before, it will be understood in the context of your house, not just in the context of these drawings. If it blurs the boundaries of what is original and what is not, then it is successful. Perhaps the cased, rectangular opening looks more natural in this isolated view of the kitchen, but I am glad you are considering what may look more natural in real life. I always like the new to at least acknowledge the existing, especially when they are similar in execution. If you were putting in a slick Italian lacquer kitchen, and your family room was a glass box --that could work, and it would be silly to stick some traditional element from the old house in the new space, but when you are adding traditional to traditional...blur the boundaries a bit:) IMO:)