Nice.

JDS: thank you for your very insightful response. Incredibly helpful! when you say few builders know how to build this type of home accurately, do you mean from a construction point of view? Use of wrong materials, colors, etc? How can I avoid those mistakes and ensure that my house turns out " correct?" I will be doing in brick, so I don't know if that mistake number 1?

Well, the answer is quite simple: hire a good architect. Brick is the most common material for this kind of house. Use of stone is very rare and makes it very special.

Behind facades like that you can make spaces like this.

This type of neo-Colonial house derives from the Western tradition of classical architecture. This tradition goes back to the ancient Greeks. It is impossible to educate anyone on this tradition, in any reasonably comprehensive way, in the space of a thread post.

If you are really interested in getting a result similar to that photo, you need a great architect, not just a good architect, and at least a couple of million dollars. I'm not kidding.

In fact, it would probably be easier to buy something in one of the inner Boston suburbs, like Brookline or Newton. There are some very good examples of this style in that area.

There's lots of good (and not so good) Internet references for Colonial Revival and related historical architectural styles. Here's one source Here

Absolutely lovely house, and not something we see frequently here in the South. Things I think make it right /wrong:

- That's an upgraded brick, not the cheapest stuff. This same house in a standard brick wouldn't have the same presence /the same depth of character.

- Yes, as someone else noted, the first floor has taller windows, and that does make a difference in how much light comes in. Really, windows are a make-or-break part of a house.

- I think this particular example is enhanced by the stone retaining wall, which may or may not be a need for your property. Do consider how it'll look without this retaining wall. Also, the landscaping is immaculate, and that's adding to the overall house's lovely appearance.

- The garage to the side is essential for this house. A front-loading garage would ruin the look ... so the question is, does your lot support this need?

- A negative: The front door is protected only by a small "indent", and while the detail is wonderfully done, a larger front porch would be more comfortable for guests in bad weather.

- Another negative: Because this design relies strongly on symmetry, you'll have to force interior rooms to fit your exterior shapes; for example, I assume that's an attached garage on the far right ... so the room mostly hidden by the tree on the far left must be the same size as the garage. The point is that you have less freedom to enlarge the family room on one side or reduce the size of a guest bedroom on the other side. On a similar note, your windows have to stay where your windows are -- no such thing as enlarging this one or scootching the other one over -- so your furniture placement will be determined by the set-in-stone windows.

- With the two side "wings" and two chimneys, you might not have the option of windows on two sides of your main rooms, and that's a thing that pretty much everyone likes.

- Finally, a house like this typically has all the bedrooms upstairs, which you might consider a positive or a negative.

A traditional 6/6 window may be 4 1/2ft tall or 7ft, and at a distance you cannot tell because the proportions are exactly in sync.

Description: "This elegant stone house in a mature Washington, DC garden suburb needed to be refreshed and expanded to suit a young family. Furthermore, its handsome garden view needed to be screened from the distant taller buildings behind it. Besides being upgraded with all new bathrooms, kitchen and systems, the house was expanded to add a family room with pool changing facilities below, and a pool was added on the rear terrace surrounded by a ring of mature Southern Magnolias. The sunroom on the front was gutted to bring trees through to the rear yard, and then rebuilt. The house was completely renovated using subtle colors and luxurious materials like blue-glazed volcanic stone on the kitchen island with a soft marble mosaic backsplash, and a pale blue and white mosaic in the master bathroom."

A renovated stone Georgian house, likely pre-War, in a D.C power suburb. I'm guessing three to five million! Evidently K street still pays well... ;)

They tore down a sunroom ... so they could bring mature trees into the backyard ... and then rebuilt the sunroom. Wow.

mrspete: you give me a lot to think about... Things I haven't even noticed in the photo.... Our property does not warrant a retaining wall so we will not be having it. But the bigger issue you pointed out is the garage! Yikes.. Now that I pay more close attention to this style of home, I AM noticing that i don't see any front loading garages! We will need to have a front loading garage so this style may not work for us? Or is there a way to make it work?

St561 W: this house actually does have a front loading garage.

Where is the garage, Oaktown? It looks like a sunroom on the left, and perhaps a side or rear load on the right. It is a personal pet peeve of mine to have a front load garage on a Georgian or Colonial style house...because it messes up the symmetry of the facade AND you lose any hope of passing it off as a historic reproduction. Plus I just hate them, lol!

Oh, I think I figured it out....is it underneath on the right? Like in the basement? You see how they took the pic so it doesn't show, though. It just looks better not seeing the garage door.

Yes, on the right below the black railing, not visible from this angle due to slope and retaining wall. Don't know whether the garage is original but the house dates back to ~1929. Looks like original architect was Rodgers & Poor.

Beautiful house. The architectural "team" has amazing credentials. From their website it looks like they are into preservation. So well done.

One of the things I teach is photography, and this photograph is carefully composed to hide the garage -- I had no idea it "showed". But in real life, it would matter.

Personally, I don't have anything against front-loading garages ... if they're done properly. (Isn't that true of so many things?) A front-load garage that sits "back" from the house doesn't dominate the facade, but so many new houses today are arranged poorly. A front-loading garage has some benefits: It allows for the shortest, least expensive possible driveway, and it's easy to navigate.

I've rarely seen an ugly front loading garage. I didn't even know they were considered "ugly" until I showed up here about ten months ago. You wouldn't know from my current neighborhood of attractive homes!! Yeah, if there are three doors in a row, or the garages are a different color than the other doors or the trim on the house... you may want to re-consider. Frankly, in snow country, having a straight run-in to a garage is a selling point plus for me,especially if this means the approach can be flat. I'm building on a ridge so I can have a walk-out basement.

Oh, yeah, some front-facing garages are ugly -- or, more precisely, they can dominate the house /draw your attention to what should be a "service" area ... what you really want is the eye to be drawn to the front door.

Here's an example, and it's not too extreme: What do you see first when you look at this house? The porch pillars are kind of skimpy, and trees are hiding what looks like a pretty nice house ... but the garage is stuck right out there in front, accented even further by a gable over the garage doors. I wouldn't exactly say this is ugly, but the garage is not flattering.

On the other hand, front-facing garages can be recessed so that the house takes center stage -- this house is very much like the first example, but putting the garage to the back allows the house to shine. The larger dormer draws your eye to the front door. A guest would see the door and feel comfortable walking to the right spot.

Or this house -- the garage is right there "even" with the front door, but your eye is drawn by the stone and pillars to the front door -- not to the garage. I don't particularly love this house, but it illustrates the point.

I've got no problem with a front-facing garage, even when space allows for a side-entrance, but a whole lot of people "do them" poorly -- and the idea wouldn't work at all for some houses; the OP's picture being one of them.

The second house in your examples, belongs to one of our long time posters on this board. It is beautiful and extremely well done, imo.

Yes or no? (garages in front or frontloading)

Fresh Modern Colonial · More Info

Custom Colonial · More Info

Colonial Revival · More Info

Taditional Colonial - New Construction 2013 · More Info

Exterior - Classic American Dutch Colonial · More Info

Oaktown, each of the homes you posted are very nice, but I think they would look even nicer without the garage door in the front! But that's just me, everyone is entitled to their opinion and has different things that bug them. It is one of my non-negotiables. Others may have different non-negotiables.

No argument from me, nini804! I think I am one of the biggest proponents of detached garages on here. I posted the examples in response to St651 W's question as to whether there's a way to make a front loading garage work with a traditional colonial-style house. Personally I think the answer is yes. For St651 W, don't know whether it is yes or no.

In defense of 2- and 3-car garages dominating the front of a house's facade, they really do make sense if one puts function over form. (I have a side-load garage on my house, so I don't really have hurt feelings over this matter.)

More and more, houses are being built with infrequently-used rooms exposed at the front windows (formal parlor and dining room), and the most lived-in rooms at the back of the house (eat-in kitchen and family room). I don't think as many people are concerned about the street facade as they are the comfort and privacy of the rooms inside.

It reminds me of the evolution of televisions. First, they were built into beautiful furniture cabinets. Then, they shed the cabinets, and were mounted on top of tables. Then everyone began stuffing them into armoires so they could hide them behind closed doors when company came over. Now, we're mounting them to the walls and hanging them over fireplaces. We seem to have dropped the premise that we don't really watch a lot of TV, leaving the house's most frequently used electronic device up front and center, without shame or apology. And we watch them in our family rooms, tucked in at the back of the house, off the kitchen, away from the streetfront where people drive by and judge our homes.

Comparing garages to televisions is specious. Televisions used to be very deep and heavy and now they are thin and light but cars are still large and heavy and one car garages have become two or three car garages.

You are trying to justify the architectural dominance of garage doors by suggesting a garage is a functional part of a house when the usual reason for one to be tightly integrated into the massing of a house is to allow the project to fit on a narrow subdivision lot.

A garage is nothing more than an optional enclosed storage space for vehicles. Many homes don't even have a garage. Most garages in my neighborhood are detached and behind the house. One of my neighbors has never owned a car.

JDS, how much garage would you recommend for this family? Yes, all four cars are theirs and I believe there is a hobby car in the front-loaded, attached, 2-car garage too. Sorry for the bad drive-by shot.

Alas, the consequences of not enough garage.

This is truly a first-world problem!

Yes, my two college girls would definitely say, "First world problems".

I'd say what this family needs is to remove the row of trees on the right of the driveway and replace them with parking spaces on their lot.

Balanced facades are typical in the composition of classically-based traditional designs like this stone colonial. The arrangement of the windows and doors does impose some planning challenges but these can be overcome. Some of the most interesting interiors can be developed by juxtaposing the order of the facade out front with the informality of the interior planning and the architectural language used inside.

The authenticity of the house in the image is due to its proportions and partly due to the use of fine, more durable (and yes, pricier) materials like stone and slate. They need little or no maintenance and last a long time so the lifetime cost of the building and overall financial and environmental cost and impact are very reasonable. These buildings, if well renovated every 50-75 years, can last hundreds of years.

Barnes Vanze, I just looked at your houzz pages. Your work is exemplary in that the composition of all the houses work well. None of the putting on bling just for the sake of bling.

Barnes, in our area, there are several such beautiful houses, however, with the 14% yearly increase in property values, and being built on 'Manitoba Gumbo' (heavily clay soils that swell and bust foundations), many of the owners are finding they cannot afford to renovate them at all, if ever. They just bulldozed two of them to put up 'modern' homes...

I'll also note that living in one of the coldest parts of North America (short of Alaska), that a garage is an absolute necessity: Storing your car outdoors at -30F is uncomfortable, and prematurely wears out your car (if you can even get it to start in the morning!)