Is there any other information that I can provide to help out with the question?

I prefer when the feature of a house is the front door and not the gables. The gables should be an accent and be there for a reason. Honestly, this isn't wowing me especially the porch one with the mutton chops.

I don't think you will be able to substantially improve the appearance of the house with cladding materials alone but I would start by choosing one eave line and using one cladding material above it and another below it rather than using a patchwork approach. Of course, whether that works or not would require a drawing.

More troubling is that the strong symmetry of the mirror image lapped gables dominates the house design but that symmetry is not found elsewhere in the design and one set of gables is slightly higher than the other which IMO creates an odd unresolved feeling. Once symmetry is introduced at this scale it is difficult to know where to stop.

Since the gable pediments are blank they seem to have no purpose other than to shed water to the sides and that is only necessary at the entry. The hipped main roof makes it clear that the space under the huge roof is unused and reinforces makes it clear that the the front gables are just for show. Making the larger gables appear useful (like with a window) is hindered by the small lapping gables. It's a tough design challenge.

I would try to differentiate the gables and/or make them relate more to the interior spaces or embrace symmetry with more conviction. It can be a major design challenge to try to give a 1-story house the architectural stature of a 1 1/2 story house. I would start ditching the trusses and putting some usable space up there even if it will be unfinished or only used for storage.

Not a designer here but I wonder...if the garage roof were hipped, no gables. The front door is topped by a single gable, and the covered porch extends all the way to the garage wall?

Additionally you have the stonework which doesn't even wrap around the side of the house and stops abruptly. Stonework should look like there is a reason it is there.

My humble and constructive suggestion is to find another design which makes more functional and visual sense. Good luck with your project!

Interesting feedback!

cparist,

Could you elaborate on the section you referred to as mutton chops and perhaps what could be done differently? For the stone are you thinking the stone at the first garage gable should continue in the front and then end at the side of the garage? Its more or less cost as far as the current stone elevations go.

JDS,

Appreciate you taking the time to make suggestions!

I've read your post multiple times and I think I pulled out a golden nugget. Do you see the curved trim below the gable pediment (the 4th gable)? How about I repeat that on gable 1. Then all 4 gables will have cedar shakes. The siding below the main eave will then be the same siding (different color). I think that may embrace the symmetry you mentioned to a further extent? The functional storage is a really good point but it boils down to budget and we don't need that space. The basement is massive (2800 sqft) and would only be partially finished if ever in the future.

bpathhome,

I like your suggestion and appreciate the simplicity in that particular design but it might be too simple?

Virgil,

Could you provide more feedback as to the visual issues and potential solutions?

I prefer either of your husbands choices without the shed roof. The shed roofs look like lipstick on a pig to me. My first choice would be the third one. I will circle the muttonchops

Your initial exterior is trying to be 'craftsman' without succeeding. The roof is too tall. There are also too many gables. Craftsman comes out of bungalow, which is a single story with a low gable roof -- sometimes a low second level within that gable.

What chisue said. :)

This is a muttonchop.

The internet designers seem to be obsessed with short tapered columns on masonry bases and low shed dormers of the Craftsman Style supporting big gables of the Victorian Queen Anne/Shingle Styles or the many Colonial Revival Styles occasionally added on to a tall hipped roof from Medieval France.

When asked to comment on these designs I have a difficult time sorting out what the dominate design idea might be. If I can't find one, I find it extremely difficult to choose cladding materials that would reinforce the main idea. But when in doubt I use shingles because they are compatible with most of these styles and tend to tie eclectic design elements together.

The cornice returns circled above are actually a heavy handed variation of a classical design found on Greek Revival and Colonial Revival houses.

A Mutton/Pork Chop cornice end (its not really a cornice return because it chops off the cornice instead of returning it) looks like this:

The use of a variation of a formal Classical cornice return, even an exaggerated one, above Craftsman posts is considered eclectic or of mixed styles. A Craftsman Style house would typically have open eaves with exposed rafter tails and no returns. Mixing these ideas is odd because the Craftsman was a reaction to the heavy detailing of earlier styles.

A true Classical cornice return compared to the variations often called a Poorman's return (because it is much easier to build) looks like this:

If you add a gutter in place of a crown molding you have the variation posted by the OP.

JDS thank you. I love your posts because I am always learning from them. Like you said it is heavy handed and doesn't work with the rest of the detailing.

cparist/chiuse,

Is the detailing of concern because its trying to be something its not? I'm not really looking to select a particular style its more or less either I like it or I don't then make refinements to make more to what I want. Overall I don't like traditional homes and like more contemporary looks. Which is why I was drawn to this one as it does mix various styles together.

I went through your exterior clippings and this was probably my favorite one!

https://www.houzz.com/photos/vancouver-west-custom-home-craftsman-exterior-vancouver-phvw-vp~20464914

JDS,

Thanks for the additional detail.
You had mentioned:

But when in doubt I use shingles because they are compatible with most of these styles and tend to tie eclectic design elements together.

Would you for the time being recommend the same shingles/shakes in all four gables then?

Here is a good reference for the design of cornice returns.

Leftontheinside wrote, "...Could you provide more feedback as to the visual issues and potential solutions?..." There are so many issues and problems with the design in the first photo that I hardly know where to begin. JDS and others have pointed out a number of glaring issues to those of us who have spend a lifetime in and around architecture. Essentially the design is simply a mish-mash assemblage of various shapes, carpentry construction, detailing, materials and finishes. Frankly, it looks like a annual home builders convention demonstration project for as many construction techniques and materials as possible. There simply is no overall organizing concept or idea for the design and execution of the house--no architectural style, no unifying roof shapes or massing, no common use of detailing, materials or color. The two other examples preferred by your husband are much more clearly organized and executed, especially the second photo which appears to have all common gable roof forms except for the garage shed dormer, which has similar dormers at the side of the garage and right of the front porch. As a general rule, consumers should get their running shoes on anytime they see elements such as stacked gables, gable and hip roofs mixed together, more than two materials and/or colors on an elevation, a change in major materials at the corner of a house, and a host of unrelated details such as the eve bracing, fascia and cornice, window trim, columns, etc. There's simply too much unrelated stuff, which turns the design into a jumble. I frankly don't think there's any remedial solution for the exterior of this house. This is not a traditional design, it's not a contemporary design, it's certainly not a modern design--it's not a design at all, it's just an assembly of stuff! I wish there was a constructive remedial solution but short of taking everything away and starting fresh I don't think there's much potential for salvage. I'd look elsewhere. Good luck on your project.

Greatly appreciate everyone's feedback and taking the time to write some details!

For exterior 3, what would you recommend instead of the shed dormer over the garage?

I'm assuming it was done as shown due to the height of the roof. The windows are actually for a bonus room.

Yes, I would try using shingles above the gutter line. If you had a shed dormer, I would use shingles on it too. That would bring a bit of the Craftsman back to the design but the overwrought cornice returns are a problem IMO.

I know it is tempting to combine historic design elements that you like but if you study the history of domestic architecture, you will find that these designs were statements inspired by important cultural shifts. Putting them together can be more of a cultural contradiction than a visual one.

If you want to see what great Craftsman/American Arts & Crafts design looks like, study the work of Greene & Greene.

If you like big formal gables, study the work of Stanford White.

These architects couldn't be farther apart in their design philosophies and response to the cultural changes of their eras.

Greene & Greene

Stanford White (McKim Mead & White)

Here is an interesting book.

Another book you might want to read is: What Not to Build

I am not an architect. I am a fine artist and was a textile designer for many years. However the one overriding idea is one that Virgil suggested in that all good design has a focus and organizing idea to it. When one looks at good design, whether in a painting, a wallpaper or in a house, our eye first picks up a "focal point" and then moves throughout. If you look at that first house, your eye bounces from one element to the next to the next and back again.

Compare that to the examples that JDS shows. Each one has a focus. Even the two homes your DH likes are better examples. Especially in example 3.

My husband basically said if we go this route he'd simply remove the returns on gables 1 and 4. Mimic the cedar shingles from gables 2 & 3 in gables 1 & 4.

Cedar posts would be widen slightly and brought down to the porch (bases removed). Then the stone would be carried across the entire front elevation at the current height.

Any thoughts on those suggestions?

Any thoughts on those suggestions?

Lipstick on a pig?

Honestly, there are a lot more things wrong with the look of that one than just the returns and the cedar shingles. Please reread what we've all said to you.

Do me a favor. Close your eyes and open them and look at the first picture. What do you see? Hard to say right because your eye is bouncing all around.

Now do it with every other photo posted. You'll see your eye starts with a focal point before moving on.

When the design is poor, embellishments and tweaking simply do not help. This house is like the old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. This house is like someone sat a dozen people down and each designed part of the house. With no one organizing or allowed to throw out anything. "Kitchen sink design".

Start over. Please. You can do SO much better than puppy mill plans with built in genetic defects.

Definitely appreciate everyone taking the time to make suggestions. I understand it can be tough to do so when considering different tastes and things may be taken out of context as some details may be missing.

This particular home is a model home and the specs have been vetted thoroughly. Including discussions with contractors, building inspectors, etc. Price per sqft is ~$145 so its actually one of the most competitively mid-tier priced homes we've come across in our area.

I was drawn to the overall look as it feels impressive to me yet its different and doesn't break our budget. I definitely pulled plenty of take aways so hopefully I don't sound like I'm responding like the posts are falling on deaf ears.

I do circle back that everyone has different tastes. For example, Carpist I saw the front elevation of your home in another post and I'm going to simply state its something I would never consider building even if it was the least expensive home to build. But I respect that everyone has a design they are drawn too and some live and die by design principles. Personally I don't need a focal point on the home. The home is the focal point within the given landscape which is not shown in the image. But I get your point as evident in image 1 & 5 that JDS posted. You start at the focal point (the central entry), you carry over to the symmetry and your brought back to the focal point. I do appreciate the design and history but its not my style.

JDS, we've been considering a 1.5 story or bonus room for that very reason as its "cheap" sqft so to speak. Again thank you so much for detailing your responses.

I understand you don't like my home because it's probably too stylistically simple for your tastes and that is fine. However, my home is designed for a small city lot in a downtown SW Florida area and it works for my neighborhood. I appreciate that we have different taste when it comes to what we like and that's a good thing. I love walking through eclectic neighborhoods and appreciate all styles of homes, although like you, I probably wouldn't want to live in a great majority of them. :)

Just an aside: you did not see the earlier very poor attempts where many of the architects like renovator8, LWO and Virgil helped me to refine the look to what it is now. The first elevation on mine was a mish mash. I had said to the draftsman I wanted a craftsman feel, so he threw every craftsman idea he could think of onto my home, including bumpouts, gables, etc. It created a home that was poorly designed as again there was no focus to it. (BTW: If you're only looking at my most recent thread, you're only seeing one view. My house is a corner property and the garage side is also a "major" view although it's not to your taste.)

However, I could see that it was not working and knew it needed lots of help but I wasn't entirely sure how to remedy it. The people here were kind enough to help me and with their help I got a home that, while not your taste, is good design.

There are many impressive homes in a variety of styles on this forum that are good design. Some have lots of ornament, or lots of turrets or gables, or lots of dormers, or use different materials, etc. Are they all my taste? No, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are good design. While I may not personally like a certain style of home, as an artist I can see when a house follows the principles of good design.

That is the difference. Good design is timeless. Good design works on all levels whether the style is craftsman, georgian, french normandy, victorian, contemporary, etc. It works whether there are those turrets, or gables or dormers, etc. Even taking pieces from different styles can work if overall the home is well designed.

This home is not good design. It has nothing to do with taste. They are two different things. It has to do with VERY POOR design.

This reminds me of what my father in law used to say back when he and I were both in the textile industry. I'd complain about all the poor wallpaper designs back in the 80's and he'd say to me, "If someone designed it, there's someone who will buy it."

Whether something works as a good design has nothing to do with style or taste.

Hi caparist, thanks for the additional insights. If anything, appreciate everyone taking time to provide reasons or alternate suggestions.

My husband showed me this one as another top choice.

We simply aren't connecting on this posting. I guess we simply have to acknowledge that personal taste and experience are in the eyes of the beholder and let it go at that. For what it's worth, every professional on this thread will cringe looking at this "design" or lack of design knowledge and skill. For example, stone masonry which is paper thin and doesn't even turn the corner on the left mass; all sorts of unnecessary structural truss work on the projecting gables, which serve no purpose except to deteroriate over time in the weather; gable and hip roof forms which have no relationship to anything except to keep the rain out; etc. Nothing more here I can add. Good luck to you on your project, and very best wishes!

We're mulling it over! Thanks for all the feedback.

Are we going in the right direction with the design above? Its a 1.5 story.

Perhaps a separate post once we discuss a bit more.

Regarding what you just asked, Virgil answered you. He was talking about the house you just posted.

Have you considered working with an architect? Not a draftsman, because as I posted above, draftsmen are not designers. But an architect? I think you'd do well by working with one.

Again, I had suggested you get the book What Not to Build. I highly recommend it. I used it when I was refining my home.

And please understand, this isn't a slight on you. We all have our strengths and the best thing when something isn't a strength is to ask those who have the strength in the area you lack. I rely on my builder to build the actual house because I don't have those skills. I rely on my accountant to help me pay my taxes because again, I don't have those skills.

I don't diagnose myself when I'm sick but instead rely on my doctor. This is why I suggested working with an architect. :)

The decorative trusses at the top part of the gables were a common feature of the Victorian Stick Style in the last half of the 19th century and were intended to mimic Medieval English architecture.

The combination of multiple front facing gables projecting from a tall hipped main roof is a common feature of American builder-developers and pre-designed internet house sites but IMO the combination is awkward to the point of looking amateurish. I believe substantial gables should project from something equally substantial.

I would trace the image leaving out all the superficial decorative elements to see the true nature of the house. This design could be interesting if it had fewer cliches.

V. Carter said:

"...consumers should get their running shoes on anytime
they see elements such as stacked gables, gable and hip roofs mixed
together, more than two materials and/or colors on an elevation, a
change in major materials at the corner of a house, and a host of
unrelated details such as...e[a]ve bracing, fascia and cornice, window
trim, columns, etc."

I'm going to rehearse and paraphrase the above when I meet my new architectural technologist for a 5,000 sf. plan soon.

That is the empty out the fridge casserole of designs. A little of this, a little of that, and enough ketchup over the whole thing be able to choke it down if you aren't picky about what you shovel in your gullet. Fine dining it ain't'. It ain't even a decent chain burger.

Back to your original post, I like option #1 or #4 best.

I'm not a design professional, but I think the original house looks fine. I also like the picture you posted that your husband found. :-)

Yeah its a tough one. After absorbing all the comments (well most) I'm starting to appreciate exteriors for their simplicity and integrated design.

But none the less I laid out the 4 options along with 2 others to co-workers/family/friends etc and everybody really liked the first one I posted. I didn't tell anyone I was considering any particular design either. Seems odd there is such an extreme difference in opinion with typical homeowners and the design community with this one, albeit a small sampling. Although everyone I talked to is under 40.

So there you have it, leftontheinside--the definitive analysis: consumers on the one hand as opposed to those in the design community. And, of course, the killer finding is that everyone you talked to is under 40! Are you wondering why you are wasting your time posting here...! :-)

As I said earlier, if someone made it, someone will buy it.

Although I don't post here often, its probably one of the most informative threads for me thus far actually. With some of the follks I told them about the issues brought up in the post and they did have that I agree moment but they said they wouldn't have thought about it I had not pointed it out (of course).

What I have learned from designing houses since the 70's is that there is a logical process that has a clear beginning, middle and end. That process can be made far more difficult by starting at the end (choosing a pre-designed house) and then trying to work backwards to make it suit your needs and tastes especially if you have never designed a house before and are not entirely sure of what you want. IMO the process works best if you start at the beginning with a competent guide.

If I had no design experience and could not afford an architect, I would spend my time looking at the web sites of architects rather than the web sites of plan mills or just find a neighborhood with good architect designed houses and take photos. The point and shoot camera with fold out screens make it a lot easier to photograph houses without being too obvious about it.

Here's a 1 1/2 story Shingle Style near me:

Here are some good architect web sites. You can find them on Houzz too.

Terrific leftontheinside.

Ok soapbox moment:

If schools brought back the arts in schools instead of only teaching to tests, we might all be more visually educated.

Ok off of my soapbox now. ;)

Again I highly recommend the book I mentioned above. It helped me tremendously when I was designing my home, even though much of it I knew already. Then after reading the book, start visually looking at all homes in your neighborhood and on the internet to see which ones truly work and which ones are just visual messes.

BTW: Here is one of the very first elevations that was given to me by my draftsman. The bottom is what I have now and I am hoping to make one or two more changes as per advice. That will depend on if it can be done or not.

However, notice how the first one is again a mish mosh. I said craftsman and the draftsman threw every craftsman idea onto the house, except he didn't do true craftsman. He did what I call "builder craftsman". Our front door did have to move to the other street (I'm on a corner) because of zoning, but overall you can still see how just about everything changed and became more simple to give it more harmony.

Perhaps the reason you are getting more from this site is that your friends are going to be reluctant to criticize your design choices even if they have the knowledge and experience to do so.

But architects and other designers are trained by the centuries old critique method where their designs are torn apart by successful practicing architects and professors in front of the class. If your design can survive that, you might have something worth building and the demanding training teaches you to avoid the pitfall of falling in love with your own ideas.

I had to wait until I designed a house for a client to hear someone say they liked my work.

A well designed house is a very difficult thing to create. It's a task easily underestimated often by architects themselves (the one's who design mostly commmercial/institutional buildings anyway). Designing a skyscraper where there's a lobby floor and 50 identical floors above it is in many ways an easier task.

JDS, I don't know how long you've been here or maybe you just missed it but cpartist initiated a great thread here "What Makes a House have Good Design": http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3285825/what-makes-a-house-have-good-design?n=39

BTW CP, didn't hear back so how'd the HVAC locations I suggested for your house fly with your draftsman?

ARC I answered you privately. Thanks.

I'm familiar with the design of cpartist's house. My comments were in response to the OP's situation.