My own preference (I'm a part-time empty nester, with the youngest off to college now), is the top plan.

I like how both the front and rear entrances are kind of separate, slowing down the drafts as you say, but also they give you or visitors a private spot to drop gear and "recombobulate" before entering the living spaces.

I like how when you enter the house, you don't have the entire space in front of you, but you are guided into the house. Then when you come around the corner, your eye takes in the view out the back window. In the bottom plan, the first view is the powder room, dining room, kitchen, mudroom, and you don't see the living room and garden view until you are well into the house.

I like how the stairs are part of a connecting space, whereas in the bottom plan they descend to a nebulous area and the dining room table.

I like how the top dining room is part of the living space, but cozy, in the corner so it's well-defined. In the bottom plan, the table seems to float in space.

One thing I do prefer in the bottom plan is the coziness of the living area, surrounded by walls on three sides. But a similar feel could be accomplished in the top plan with furniture or things like change in ceiling height or treatment.

Plus if you're on a small infill lot and are an empty nester, instead of thinking you may have to move downstairs, how about thinking where you can put an elevator? Either now or for the future. That's what we are doing.

They look like plans of the infill houses in my neighborhood, unfortunately they are out of scale with the existing homes. The existing homes have eight foot ceilings. Many of the infill house have ten foot ceilings on the first floor and nine foot on the second floor. They tower over the existing homes and look out of place, no regard for human scale.

I think a true prairie style home is a good solution. Are you in Michigan?

Read all these comments, but read Worthy's comment more than once.

But for fun, as we figure this out

I took that to mean the OP is not planning to bring a design to their architect, but rather fleshing out and expressing more likes and wants.

We have no idea what their infill neighborhood is like. In the cities by me, it can mean anything from small post-war starter homes to bungalows to old brownstones. A tall skinny contemporary looks better next to a brownstone than next to a wee starter home.

Around here, anytime a new house is built, it is out of scale with the existing houses. Ceiling heights are always more than 8' now, even additions are taller than the main house. But even in a different style than other neighbors, it can still fit in if it's designed well.

or, if you want to be in the Parade of Homes, this little dandy...

That one is a Parade unto itself!

Thanks for the comments and pictures! Except for the car in front, I LOVE the cube house.

No, I don't live in Michigan, but I'm from there, and also formerly lived in Chicago, so any Frank Lloyd Wright or prairie elements would be a nod to my background. And I like prairie style.

As an infill house, it will be a out of place with the existing houses on the street, but in line with what the houses in the neighborhood look like; the neighborhood has a mixture of houses from various eras and styles, but mostly simple bungalows from the early 1900s; no brownstones in this neighborhood. There are some two-story houses on the street, either original builds or pop-tops. Given how hot the market is, and the development or redevelopment of the neighborhood, there will be more scrapes.

I would like to include elements of the exterior that are more consistent with the bungalows that are mainly on the street, but I'm not creative enough to have ideas on that - that would be up to the architect. One architect whose work we really like, and who designed several houses a couple of streets away, has designed houses that are modern but still more in line with the area, and their scale fits in well (though those that I've seen so far are not prairie style). We're setting up a meeting with him asap. (The plans above are not his.)

We (spouse and I) have discussed elevators, but would be more likely to install a stair chair. It's likely that a parent could come to live with us, and the basement will include an area for them to live, or possibly upstairs. The 3/4 bath and use of my office would be in the case of short-term need.

I'm not taking these plans to an architect, just developing ideas. I'm thinking that there's only so much variety one can have with a small urban lot (without building that cube house), but wanted to hear other Houzzers' thoughts.

Don't do a stair chair. My in-laws had this and also a cousin. First of all, they are ugly. Second, even folded up, they make using the stairs difficult, especially if carrying a big load of something. Third, if the person requires a walker, they will have to have one on each floor. They're only a good plan if the other option means leaving the house altogether as an elevator is impossible.

You're building this house; include an elevator from basement to 2nd floor. You'll be glad you did.

How wide and how deep are the typical lots that you are considering? Is there a height restriction or lot coverage restriction?

Agree with Anglo. You don't have to put the elevator in now, but plan for a closet on each floor that could be converted. You won't regret it.

Also if you build the elevator now, it's not that expensive. Ours is under $20k.

This sounds like a fun project! I don't see Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie style as a good inspiration. By necessity this house will be too tall and narrow. Perhaps earlier Oak Park work?

Our lot size is 4791 ft, about 36 ft wide and however deep that would be. There will be a 2-car garage and a back yard that will be no less than 17 feet deep. I think the side setbacks are 5 feet on each side, front has to be the average of the houses on either side. Bottom line, we're planning for a house that will be about 27 feet wide and about 57 feet deep. There will be a finished basement (pretty standard for more recent builds in this neighborhood) with a bedroom and bath, the remaining space we'll use for exercise equipment and storage. The upper floor will have three bedrooms (also standard for this neighborhood), two full baths and a laundry room.

Don't know the height restriction, architect / builder will know that. But there are several taller houses on the street, and definitely in the neighborhood.

I'll take a look at some of the Oak Park work. One thing I really like, I don't know the name for it, is the long horizontal windows up at the roofline.

All right, all right, I get it about the elevator, it will go on the list for discussion with the architect / builder. And I know they can be pretty small these days, I've done some research.

The design problem that I think may be here is that Mr. Wright and the Prairie Style emphasized the horizontal, and tended to be built on lots/land which allowed the horizontal proportions which characterize the style. Infill urban lots tend not to allow horizontal proportions, and, instead, often force vertical development and proportions. I've asked the OP the size of typical lots and whether or not there are height and coverage regulations. No response, so it's really not possible to be of much specific help.

Virgil you really need to read through the threads. LOL.

From the OP:

"Our lot size is 4791 ft, about 36 ft wide and however deep that would be. There will be a 2-car garage and a back yard that will be no less than 17 feet deep. I think the side setbacks are 5 feet on each side, front has to be the average of the houses on either side. Bottom line, we're planning for a house that will be about 27 feet wide and about 57 feet deep"

There are many examples of FLW houses that were built on narrow, deep city lots. The Prairie style accentuates the horizontal, it does not actually have go be wide. Most of the original Prairie houses were two story, city houses. The Usonian houses were single story in a more suburban, spread out setting.

Agree with Nirvanaav. While the Prairie Style emphasizes the horizontal as Virgil writes, it doesn't necessarily need a wide lot to make that happen. Here's an example of it on an infill city lot. Interestingly, the very first time I put pencil to paper here. Scroll down to my 12/6 post [https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-help-with-exterior-design-of-this-house-dsvw-vd~263597[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-help-with-exterior-design-of-this-house-dsvw-vd~263597)-

This lot is narrow but not that deep. 57 feet will probably be enough to capitalize on opportunities to pull back the upper level from the main level to emphasize the horizontal. The caveat is we still don't know about floor area ratios, building coverage, or bulk planes.

CPA wrote, "...Virgil you really need to read through the threads. LOL...."

Yep, reading is always a good thing to do. But she hadn't posted that when I wrote! :-)

I'm still confused--is the OP's intent for a 2-story or 3-story (above grade) house...

^^ ok you get a pass. ;)

I'm back, busy day at work. Plan is for a 2-story (above grade) house. Basement, main floor, bedroom floor. I don't know yet about floor area ratios, building coverage or bulk planes. I don't know what those phrases mean - good thing we'll be using an architect!

ARG, thanks for the link. I like the sketch in your 12/6 post and the picture that the OP posted on 12/5 at 7:32 am.

I like the idea of setting back the second floor a bit, though that really depends on how much space we will have on that level.

Ok...here's how the dimensions work: The building envelope permits a maximum width of around 26', give or take (lot is 36' wide and has a 5' setback for each sideyard). If the house is 1' above grade, and the floor to floor height is 10' for each floor, the second floor plate height is at elevation 20' (1' above grade, plus 2 floors at 9' ceiling height, plus 1' structure for second floor), before any pitched roof or parapet in the case of a flat roof. So 26' wide and 20' feet tall...there's a modest horizontal proportion built in to whatever design there may be.

But it's modest, and not a strong horizontal proportion as was common for most of Mr. Wright's work and the Prairie Style.

So, it's possible to have something which recalls Prairie Style, but it's going to take a lot of site specific creativity, and not likely something which can be found in a plan factory pre-designed house.

Find the best architect you can who understands and is proficient in Prairie Style in urban infill lots.

Good luck!

You will need to check with your planning department for exact requirements and definitions. In general: Floor area ratio (FAR) is the overall area of the house divided by the lot area. If you have FAR it will be very important to know whether that includes the basement. Building coverage is the footprint of the building divided by the lot area. Bulk plane can be best envisioned by a 3D container the house must fit within. I do work in Boulder and Denver who both use a bulk plane. In both cities it looks like an old fashioned lunch box.

I'm currently doing a home on a more restrictive lot in Denver. We have 30 feet total width to work with, so the house will be 22 feet wide. I'm surprised by how important the outside spaces are with limited room to create outside experiences in an urban environment.

"We have 30 feet total width to work with, so the house will be 22 feet wide."

Take it to the limit and specify only one coat paint on the exterior.

Here are some narrow FLW houses. A couple seem to be about the correct aspect ratio.

Here is a modern Prairie style house by Steve Jaskowiak of Chicago.

These are wonderful designs and photos (except for the last one, which simply trying to hard to be "Prarie"), but I'm not sure about the proportions of width to height. All of Mr. Wright's houses appear to be wider than 27', and certainly Mr. Jaskowiak's house is much wider than that.

But they all are useful for inspiration and ideas. Note that Mr. Wright's houses have entries on the side elevation, and not facing the street front...Mr. Jaskowiak has not used Mr. Wright's design devices of planters and proportional walls to "ground" the house he designed.

"Mr. Jaskowiak has not used Mr. Wright's design devices of planters and proportional walls to "ground" the houses he designed."

Mr. Jaskowiak does use those devices in his up-market designs.

Yep, indeed he does! Great photos! A wee bit wider than 26' don't you think? But very handsome....:-)

26' is about the width or length of a 2-car garage. I think this FLW facade is one to take inspiration from.

Or just the left part of Mr. Jaskowiak's townhouse without the garage.

Yes, very good for inspiration. Not so good for actual width, however, since (to my eye at least), the front element is wider than 26', and much wider when one considers the bulk of the house on the very far left. Wonderful cantilevers--another trait of Mr. Wright (which troubled his houses from start to finish)!