There are different philosophies for landscape creation. A common one comes from builders: use cheap, fast growing plants and smother the foundation. Another comes from landscape designers: overplant and thin later (attempting to give the fullest look the soonest.) Since there are some nice plants, you may have gotten a hybrid of these philosophies! But it looks like plants overwhelm the house and the resultant look is one of neglect. From the street it does not look the least inviting insofar as going to the front door. One can't see if there's a path to get there and it looks like it's probably going to be creepy with wasps, spiders and dirty leaves at the stoop. Personally, unless you LOVE to trim, I can't see why having plants that grow MUCH larger than the space allotted is a good idea. IMO, you'd be better off with a complete re-do and plants whose ultimate size is a better fit for the space. Below each window should be a shrub that's easy to keep 2' - 3' tall. (The shape is not a ball. It's a dome.) The pine tree at the left corner is going to become (already is) much too large to be kept in the shrub form (with foliage to the ground.) In that position I think it can only be a tree and it's past time to begin removing bottom limbs so that humans can walk below it and the view to the first floor of the house can be maintained. If you limb it up, you can grow nice things below it. If you don't, you can't work comfortably below it or grow nice things. (When you first remove limbs, the tree looks somewhat awkward because the limbs remaining are at an upward angle instead of how the lower limbs are right now. But as they age and lengthen, they hang lower and eventually the natural look returns. It's best to remove limbs as soon as you know they need it. Wait and it's more work later.) With a large, open yard, it will look better if there's some large shade trees widely spaced along the street. (Hope there are some behind this camera position.)

It looks like the "front" door is out of view of the street. Given it's lengthy approach and seeming lack of visual interest upon arrival, I believe I would expand the paved area near the door to create a small patio. There could be some seating, say a small bistro set, on it. A small tree inside the corner of where the walk makes its last turn could add a sense of shelter to the walk experience. Area inside of walk is small enough for groundcover instead of turf. Turf could be at outside of walk, except for the skinny part next to fence.

Many of the features built into houses of this period were expressly for the purpose of saving costs ... minimal trim, minimal or non-existent roof overhang, smaller windows, narrow walks & drives, etc. A by-product of this cost-saving strategy was lack of charm. Even though shutters were non-functional, using them was one way people figured out to add a little interest and charm to an otherwise relatively plain looking piece of architecture. It was usually enough to help, if not entirely counteract, the blank wall effect. If a house style begs for clean, austere lines I could understand the goal to remove shutters. But many times the house is begging for more interest! I can't get on with this shutter-removal fad that seems predicated primarily on the fact of present day shutters being non-functional or appearing that way. I agree, they should be right-sized -- as any trim should be. But I can't see that removing them is really helping the look in many cases. I don't think it is here.

Cameron, those are not the right pictures. They are from different points of view and different distances. In order to take the pictures, you'd need to return to the place where the original photograph (in the request) was taken. Without moving from that spot, pivot the camera a take the left and right picture that overlaps slightly. (Actually, it wouldn't hurt to move about 10' closer to the house and take all three new pictures from there.) Please take them when the lighting is good.