Agree. Clear the air with the group.....then clear the view to the sky. They'll get over it: )

You know..... design, any part of it is partly to listen intently, part tune out, just as intently. Sounds wrong? It isn't.

Some of the most thrilled in the end clients are those to whom you listened, and then pushed a bit beyond .

It works both ways. The client can challenge the pro in the very same way. Listen politely.....then push back, repeat, repeat : )

It's a dialogue and all design fails without it. It is the nearly endless " but, what IF?"

@WestCoast Hopeful Portland just isn’t super Sunny.

Agreed, and to me that's all the more reason to not have 14' overhangs to block what little sun/brightness is out there. I don't expect the house to be sun-filled, I just don't want it to always feel like a cave.

The original poster seems like they feel stuck with the plan a bit. Not wanting/willing to make huge changes? So it’s tricky to figure out next steps if one isn’t willing to make significant changes.

As I said above, at this point we are ruling out major redesign (as in "go back to square one"). But we do want to change the overhangs, or find some other way to bring more daylight into the house.

@JAN MOYER A lot of money to get friction filled and house that makes you sad on many days?

That sounds like the house belongs to the arch....................and not the buyer.

Option? Remove the solid extended roof line. Get with the structural engineer and add the versatile, modern , that is appropriate to site and use.

Option of long term misery? Not a great one.

I couldn't agree with you more, this is our house and you would think that our happiness should be of paramount importance, not the architects' happiness.

It's funny you mention "get with the structural engineer" - I also asked the architects for this meeting, because I would like to understand the options for achieving what we want. But so far the architects insist on acting as the buffer/filter, which just creates a lot of needless back and forth interactions and revisions (all of which we are paying for).

In the meantime, we heard back from the architects - they did not address our specific concerns about lack of light, just said that this would require additional fees from them and from structural, and that we can discuss this after we get the cost estimate from the builder (which should be any day now).

That part sounded reasonable, I can't argue that our requested changes should have come before the permit set was finalized. What frustrates me is that they also said that the reduced 8' overhangs would still be too long to cantilever - it would be fine if it were the case, but it is not because they have an 8' cantilever on the front part of the same truss. And this has been the pattern with these architects - they often say things that are demonstrably wrong (not aesthetically, but factually), and it is really annoying to have to argue with them that actually yes, 2 plus 2 is 4, even they say that it is 5. That's just another reason why I would like to talk to structural directly, because I suspect that the architects get a lot of details wrong when relaying things back and forth between us. But they seem very reluctant to let us talk to anyone directly.

Coming in late, but here are my thoughts:

We had a lovely 12'x30' covered porch on on old house. It was "right sized" for us: a seating area on the left, a round table in the middle, and a grilling area on the right. You have probably twice as much space planned here -- why so much? Do you have specific plans for all this space?

Yes, that wonderful porch did block light from coming in the house.

I'd rip those overhangs right off. They would be 100% gone. I'd take the permit set to a structural engineer, ( you must have that, yes ? ) independent, and show him what I posted way up above.

Someone has to move on. Your wife with the idea that versatility won't work?

You settle for dim? The arrogant arch realizes he's too lazy, too in love with his own design?

I'd do this in a heartbeat. Where and ONLY where I needed it. And as big as is very useful.

At some point, you have to help yourself. Save wheel reinvention. The only thing not possible to change is your locale and the weather.

( my dad and I grilled outside in snow, in rain with a golf umbrella. I was nine...I still grill better than anyone I know, in any weather . It's upstate NY. Hardly weather paradise for better than 7/8 mos.)

@Mrs Pete Thank you for the comments, the deck in our present house is about 300 sq ft and is perfectly fine for us. Your 12x30 deck also sounds quite reasonable. The proposed covered patio is about 930 sq ft, which is huge (and to a large extent wasteful).

I'm attaching a picture of how we hope to use it - it'd be two separate areas, a more "public" one off the kitchen and living room, and a more "private" one behind the master suite. The public one would have a grill and a small seating area, and the private one would have a hot tub and a fire pit area. Even though we don't plan to have anything permanently located off the living room, we'd like to have a covered path from the living room door to the other areas.

Our architects proposed the existing roof system for the construction efficiency - the simple rectangle allows them to put up the trusses and get the house watertight in a very short period of time. But that efficiency comes at a cost of excess materials for the patio, roof construction, etc, let alone the daily impact of lack of daylight. So this becomes a tradeoff between optimizing the covered area vs construction complexity and cost - hopefully we will have that conversation.

What I am asking them to look at is to move the living room wall to line up with the kitchen wall, and then cut the overhangs by 3' to about 8'. The overhang over the master suite will still be 11' and will need some posts, but I am hoping that the other areas can be cantilevered.

@JAN MOYER I'd take the permit set to a structural engineer, ( you must have that, yes ? ) independent, and show him what I posted way up above.

The architects have a structural engineer that they are using, and I would love to talk to him as well because I sense that we are not communicating well. But I have not enlisted my own structural engineer, is that what you are suggesting?

Someone has to move on. Your wife with the idea that versatility won't work?

You settle for dim?

That's an easy one, happy wife happy life. Fortunately we both want the house to be bright, so we just need to find a workable way to achieve that.

The arrogant arch realizes he's too lazy, too in love with his own design?

Good way of putting it. It's a learning experience to realize that no matter how carefully you interview the architect, ask the references, etc, there will always be some things you didn't know. In our case, this is one of them (the arrogance).

If you believe that 3' will make any huge difference? You may still believe in Santa Claus.......

For me? Gonzo

After that ? Anything else is out in the back forty.

PS ARROGANCE? I've never met a good one not endowed with a healthy dose of the trait. Ever.

I do mean that.: )

Just my two cents but the grill and table location are wrong. Grill seems very cut off from kitchen. You are either going through living room and around table to grill or through hallway and to uncovered area to access grill. What’s the topography like? Is this a deck alone the length of the house or what type of structure?

With your light source coming from one direction, the covered patio will certainly impact natural lighting. However, instead of fighting with the exposure, embrace it with a clearstory. Add a 3/12 slope pitch to your covered patio and pop up the ceiling with windows in the desired rooms. This will keep the integrity of the structure intact. Add it to the living room at a minimum if budget is a concern. A good architect/designer will know how to design the roof. The following pictures are not your specific design but will give you an idea of a clearstory.

I agree the overhangs are long. I feel that your architects are really not very bright. They are just building what they know how to build, a modification of what they always build. They are not working outside the box. They should be listening to you. They should have noticed the issues with light. And in my opinion, the roof could have been designed so that it co-ordinated with a landscape plan for those areas with/without overhangs.

Same thought as Marc L. We’re building in Seattle and very much want covered space for cooking/dining/chilling on rainy days (and, like Portland, we get many of them). We have a large covered patio outside our east-facing great room that backs up to a wooded area. So not a ton of light to start with. On that wall, there are two sliding glass doors with a picture window in between. All three have 18” high transom windows above them. Then above the patio roof, there’s a dormer with two windows. It may not be perfect, but it’s the best combination of rain-protected space outside and light inside that we could come up with. I’ll share a photo, but we’re still under construction so it’s a little rough looking out there.

These are some great suggestions, thank you. I think that a combination of cutting back the overhang a bit and adding a popup or a series of skylights in the living room and kitchen may be the best compromise.

@rockybird I agree, it would have been nice if the architects were the ones to identify the lack of light (instead of us), and if they also tried to find a solution (instead of us), but as you know, that's not the hand we've been dealt. So here I am looking for ideas from the good folks at Houzz, which will help me work with the architects to try to fix this.

Yes. This is the best you can do and you are doing the right thing.

Here in Michigan I had a client tell me they wanted to paint the ceiling the color of the sky so they will have a more 'outdoors' feel when on their porch. I asked, "You want to paint the ceiling grey?"

(if you think about it long enough you will get at least a smile)

I use Home Designer Suite and I don't know if it has that capability.

Download the Pro trial. You can use your existing model from Suite and adjust the sun.

You can create a sun shadow to see what will be shaded on the exterior, and adjust the overhang to see the changes on the inside.

@PPF. Thank you, I'll check it out!

“it would have been nice if the architects were the ones to identify the lack of light (instead of us), and if they also tried to find a solution (instead of us), but as you know, that's not the hand we've been dealt. So here I am looking for ideas from the good folks at Houzz, which will help me work with the architects to try to fix this.”

You realize the house has not yet been built, so this problem with lack of light does not actually exist. And you asked for the covered outdoor areas, and according to you, the architect is trying to stay within budget and get the roof up with minimal exposure to the elements. You can so very easily fix lack of light with lighting, so it likely never occurred to the architect that you would be so hung up on having lighting via the windows. The architect is likely making plans and decisions based on the house being structurally sound and functional and within budget, and your complaints are aesthetic. Honestly, you will be turning on the lights no matter what the weather.

If you have a high ceiling you could put clerestory windows, which will let in light above the awning.

There is a huge difference between lighting from lights and lighting from the sun. Take it from someone who lives in a place where SAD is a problem. In our house, we do not need lights on in our house during the day in any but the worst weather, so claiming that lights are always required is not true at all. I don't think the OP is out of line wanting to have natural light in their house that they are designing and building, and their architect shouldn't be surprised that their client actually wants their windows to let in light.

OP, I think there is a difference between sun in your house and light, and I haven't seen anyone mention that. Diffused light on cloudy days will light your home different from the sun on clear days. We have four windows in our walk-out basement. 2 of them are not covered by an overhang, and 2 of them are under a 16' deck (and it's probably a bit higher than a roof overhang would be). Today is a bit cloudy here; usually at this time of day sun would be streaming in both sets of windows due to our northern latitude and southern exposure. My 2 uncovered widows let in more light and are brighter than my 2 covered windows (guess which is which - easy enough to tell). The windows are slightly different sizes which makes a little difference, but most of the difference is due to overhang. I closed the door shade as the door is at the edge of the deck so lets in more light. It isn't a total cave on that side, but there's definitely a difference. On sunny days with the sun streaming in there's little difference, aside from how far into the house the sun extends.

Anj_p where do you live?

@WestCoast Hopeful I live in Minnesota. Latitude about 45N. Portland is 45.5N, so similar sun cycles. Not sure how cloud cover compares. Guessing Portland is a bit cloudier. But we're definitely colder which makes SAD a bit worse I think (less time outside unless you are a winter warrior).

Actually, on another note, a ton of my neighbors have hot tubs. None of them are under a roof. People here will be in their hot tubs when it's snowing.

I agree with anj_p. I hate turning on lights during the day and prefer natural light over lamps any day, even if that light is kind of dim. I only turn on lamps if I absolutely have to and turned them back off again as soon as I can.

I've lived in 12 different homes in Seattle. Some of them had a wonderful amount of natural light. Others did not. Obviously it had to do with size of windows and placement, but I can say that it's absolutely possible for a well designed house in the cloudy pacific northwest to get lovely natural light, even in the winter.

Huge difference between snow and rain when considering a hot tub. Covered just makes it more enjoyable in the rain. Places with lots of snow also appear brighter because of the snow. Having lived in other parts of Canada with snow I can tell you a snow covered yard is brighter than a sloshy wet one anyway and that impacts inside too.

Well everything is brown right now where I live, so no bright reflections from snow at this time.

Never said otherwise. You mentioned snow and hot tubs. The reality is, based on a quick google search, that Minnesota gets 4 times as much snow as Oregon on average. That’s quite a difference. I suspect a big difference between the two is temperature as overall precipitation, including rain and snow together, is similar. No one is disputing that windows and overhangs matter. In the end if the OP doesn’t want to make changes now, in design when they are easy, they won’t happen.

there are several ways to ensure that you get light into the house even if it's not direct.

my overhangs are sized so that zero direct light gets in the south side of the house from the vernal equinox to the autumnal equinox. At the winter solstice, sun get about 6' into the living room at solar noon.

HOWEVER - it is never dark in my house because I have 10' high windows all across the front of the house, the walkway around the house is light colored concrete, and my interior floors are white. And - the north side never gets any sun, has 5 foot overhangs but still provides indirect light that is lovely.

So there are mitigations you can take to increase the reflected light and make sure your interior is capturing all the light (i.e. not just sucking it up) but it's also sunny here more often than not.

In a place with fewer sunny days, though, you rability to capture indirect light will be much more limited. And your architect should know this. I moved my home office to face out a window because lack of natural light can have a eal health impact / can cause seasonal affective disorder

@ShadyWillowFarm You realize the house has not yet been built, so this problem with lack of light does not actually exist. ... You can so very easily fix lack of light with lighting.

I think that "just turn on the lights" is not a good answer to wanting natural light in the house, at least not for me. That's more of a "oh s**t" band aid solution after the house is built without considering natural light. That's why I am thinking about this now, before the house is built, not after.

@anj_p Thank you for the photos, they are very helpful in illustrating the effect of the overhang on interior lighting. BTW, I do appreciate that there is a difference between direct sunlight and "cloudy day" diffuse light (in fact I think I alluded to this earlier). Both are important and both help light up the house. The first time I realized that our house may be dark was when we stayed in an Airbnb in Portland area in October, in a house that had no overhang in the living room, and a wrap around porch with an overhang over the kitchen. Even though it was cloudy and raining, the living room was quite bright from the diffuse light outside; the kitchen felt like a cave.

I downloaded the Home Designer Pro software, so I'll play around with it until we hear from the architects. Might as well be prepared for that discussion, because I expect that they will say "the house will not be dark at all".

A one level house is by design not the best design for letting in natural light unless you raise the roof and enlarge the windows, or use one of the recommendations from above. If you would have approached the design of the house from the beginning with an emphasis on maximizing natural light, you would likely not have the design you have right now.

Consider moving the living room to the south to the exterior column line, leaving the dining and covered entry porch where they are; creating an interior court open to the sky.

@Mark Bischak, Architect Thanks for the suggestion, you get an A for creativity! I'll have to see if we can do something like this without disrupting the circulation from kitchen to bedrooms, and also how we would use the outdoor space. I'll give it some thought.

The idea and sketches are meant to be conceptual. I envision all of the walls being glass as much as appropriate. There would have to be adjustments in the plan to accommodate circulation and the interior court, which would bring light into the center of the house and could be used as a display area or a protected living space.

I love Mark’s idea! I’m guessing it’s too late to make such major changes? Maybe have the courtyard open up to a yard to help deal with rain and potential flooding? My house is similar…with glass walls surrounding large planters which indent into the living areas of the house. The roof is open above the planters. Also, Mark’s idea minimizes living room overhang and creates more opportunities for light with the additional glass walls.

This home is drawings. It’s not too late to do anything if one wants to. Now is exactly the time to make changes and get what you want.

OMG I want an interior courtyard sooooo bad! That is the dream.

We have a meeting scheduled with the architects and the builder on Monday to discuss the overhang options. They told us that redesigning the roof at this point will incur additional fees from them, the structural engineer, and the truss designer, and may possibly result in higher quotes from the subs because they don't like changes.

We replied that we simply want to have a discussion to understand the options and potential cost implications, before making the decision. And if we decide to make changes, we will pay the associated costs. But we also pointed out to the architects that this whole "redesign" possibility is not because we changed our minds, as they implied, but because the plan they submitted to Structural Engineer and truss designer was not the plan that we thought they were going to submit - we expected a cantilevered patio roof, but they submitted one with posts and beams. And when we confronted the architects a few weeks back about this change, they initially said that they did this because the long cantilever was not practical. So we asked if a shorter overhang can serve both purposes - let in more light, and allow the cantilever. They said no. Then two days later they said that the structural engineer and truss designer said the cantilever can in fact be accommodated. Which means the architects never asked them earlier about the cantilever, as we suspected. Any wonder why we have friction in this relationship?

In the meantime, I am playing around with Home Designer Pro to see the effect of overhangs on natural light inside the house. Here is a picture with the current overhang on the left, and a 3 ft shorter overhang:

The effect on the light reaching into the house is quite obvious. But I'm not sure that this modeling the affect of the sunlight on making the interior brighter - they both look the same. @PPF., I've seen some of your posts on the Chief Architect forums, is there a way to model the natural light inside the house, not just see which parts of the room the sun reaches?

Are you paying all these professionals by the hour? What you are calling a “discussion “ is work to them.

Not quite sure what you are asking. We are paying them for the entire design project, which involves periodic discussions. No?

Yes. But a discussion has to eventually result in a decision. You, the Mrs, the design team. In other words, how long do you want to twist on this?

What you are talking about is the PERFECT solution. There will not be one. There never is. No site, no amount of resources will make it otherwise. It is always give/GET. Get......give.

You have a need for light? Admit it. Compromise the overhangs, THEIR exterior elevation.

The Mrs. doesn't like a retractable solution....but no amount of science, of physics, will change YOUR need for interior light. You can't have all of it , everywhere. Just as those who build waterside can NOT have every single room face a water view: )

The reality is they didn’t listen to you from start. Push back on extra fees. Do you have any correspondence where they said it would be cantilever and then didn’t deliver? Where they said they would meet with structural engineer and didn’t? That’s all on them.

If you extend the roofline there is no way to change it…if it doesn’t suit your needs…this is why an added variable structure like a pergola can address your needs …after the house is built ….even living there a while to see where and what light control is really needed…the clerestory windows will be a good way to let light enter..we have about 1300 sq.ft. of open interior space …that needs no added interior lighting all day long…(posted pic above)…where a solid overhang will block light and sun you will need and appreciate in the winter….

Our house is similar to yours with the exception of …it is facing southeast which was ideal for our location..because it lessens the hottest sun exposure..in the afternoons…having lived in Aspen for many years we became very familiar with how the correct sun exposure can enhance the enjoyment of your home year round ..and definitely save money on utilities…in winter and summer…

The reality is they didn’t listen to you from start. Push back on extra fees. Do you have any correspondence where they said it would be cantilever and then didn’t deliver? Where they said they would meet with structural engineer and didn’t? That’s all on them.

Actually I would be quite interested in getting folks' perspective on who's responsible for this debacle. I'll say right upfront that I believe it is shared responsibility, but I'm curious how you would see it. Sorry if this is going to be long, I am going to try to put down all the relevant details.

8/10 - Architects showed us two design style options. Among other differences, Option A (left) had a patio roof with beams and posts, Option B (right) had a cantilevered roof. We said we preferred the style of Option A, but would like to have the cantilevered roof of Option B. Architects said that they will check with Structural about the cantilever.

9/6 - Architects said they are "reaching out to the truss company, a bit earlier than normal, to see if we can find a solution to cantilever that south soffit (patio cover) in alignment with our discussions with the Engineer”

9/16 - Updated design package still showed the posts and beams. We asked about the cantilever (verbally), they replied that they understand our desire.

9/18 - We emailed the architects asking what the truss company said about the cantilever.

9/22 - Architects replied "We have not spoken to the truss manufacturer as we have still been discussing some of the member sizing with the Structural Engineer, as well as exploring the skylight count/locations. We will want this information before reaching out to them about the ability to carry that patio overhang without posts." In hindsight, that should have been a red flag, as it contradicted what they said a week earlier about reaching out to the truss company.

No additional discussion took place after that, and we assumed that they were still investigating (yes, I know the joke about assuming). At no point have we been told that the cantilever is not possible.

11/10 - We saw the permit set for the first time, with the full structural design completed. We noted that the design still showed beams and posts. We emailed the architects about this issue, and set up a call.

11/15 - We discussed the patio roof with the architects. They started by saying that they thought that it was just our "desire" for the cantilever, not something we were serious about. I replied that when a client asks for something numerous times, it's a good indicator that they are in fact serious. They then said that the cantilever of that depth is not possible without crazily complex structure; a number of $100K was thrown out. They also said that the drawing packages always showed the posts. To which I replied that yes, they did, but at every iteration we asked about the cantilever and they never said it was not possible. I asked why they never told me that the cantilever was not possible, to which they replied that they are sorry "for the misunderstanding". I decided that this is just something we'll have to get used to, a beam which blocks a foot of our view height, and posts that are close to the middle of the deck.

11/20 - We emailed the architects with the concerns about the depth of the overhangs from the standpoint of darkness (the subject of this thread), and perhaps we could reduce the roof overhang by about 3 ft. And that perhaps that may help get the cantilevered roof again. And I asked if perhaps we can get plugged into the discussions with the Structural Engineer and truss designer, to see what options are available.

11/23 - Architects replied that "the reduction of this soffit by 3' will still not get us to a point where dimensional lumber could cantilever that span, but I will see what the Truss Designer says in the event that this current design cannot be cantilevered". They also mentioned that they got assigned a truss designer, and were talking to them about the roof design. They did not invite us to participate in the discussion. They also did not address the darkness concern.

11/28 - Architects emailed us saying that "I was able to have a meeting with the Truss Designer this morning and we have a strategy to get the cantilever to work along that south patio within the current design. We would only have to reduce the current eave by 1'-0" along the south side. The Truss Designer confirmed it would work, but is going to rerun a few calcs and I sent over a revised framing plan to the Structural Engineer to see if the modifications I made to the ceiling framing of the modules would work. We should know more later this week, but if this checks out with our Engineer, this would achieve your desired look of no columns and no beam within the current patio configuration."

12/1 - Architects emailed us that "I heard back from the Structural Engineer regarding the roof cantilever and it is possible, based on what I proposed with the Truss Designer, to cantilever that south patio and remove those columns, but will require a redesign and reengineering on their part and will cause us to go to 2x12 ceiling framing instead of 2x8.”

They then followed up with another email saying that if we decide to redesign the roof, it will incur charges from them, the Structural Engineer, and the truss designer, not to mention delay the project by a month.

So that's the story as best as I can tell it (I know that there are three sides to every story).

In my view, the architects for whatever reason never asked Structural or the truss designer about cantilevering that patio roof, like the said they would. Instead, they proceeded to put the configuration with the posts into the plan, and gave that to Structural engineer to size. And when we called them out on it, they made something up in real time (the "it's not possible without crazy engineering" line). Because once they went back to the truss designer, and the Structural Engineer, they were told that it's very much possible, with some changes, none of which are in the "crazy engineering" realm. But regardless, they are putting all of this change on us, in terms of responsibility and of course cost.

To be honest, if the added cost is reasonable, we'll probably just swallow it in order to move forward. But if it ends up being $10K or so, it seems that it should be some kind of a shared responsibility. What infuriates me the most is that they are refusing to be grownups and say "OK guys, we screwed up, we forgot to ask the Structural Engineer about the cantilever, we'll work on improving our communications with you and will see if we can get some kind of a discount for redoing the numbers". That probably would have been good enough for me. But instead, they are making it sound like they did everything right, that we keep changing our minds and slowing things down, that we are responsible for the iterations and delays, and that the subs are likely to raise their quotes if we redesign the roof. That just does not sit well with me.

Thoughts?

Their fault. They should be assuming nothing and asking all. Also, why are they submitting for permits before you’ve even given the OK on the plans. Our team showed us in November/December what they thought would be close to the end and we submitted in February after still needing to make more changes. You are the homeowner and nothing should really be happening without your say. I do not feel the redesign fee should be on you. You were clear what you wanted and they ploughed ahead foolishly

I've been playing with the CAD model looking at different options, and we're gravitating towards changing the covered patio from one long monolithic covered area to two separate areas - one covered by a deep overhang, the other with an overhang just deep enough to prevent excessive solar gain.

So we're thinking of moving from this current design:

to this:

The "reduced overhang" portion would be above the living room (four big windows), and the master bedroom (three tall windows). It will let in more light and give more view of the sky than the current design. But it still has an overhang depth that ranges from 3 to 6 feet.

The deeper ovehang would be behind the kitchen to the left of the living room (about 14 ft) and the small deck to the left (about 6 ft).

I think this creates more usable space for both areas, as the grill/seating area was a bit tight in the original design. I realize that this will make the kitchen a little darker, but hopefully the increased indirect light from the living room will offset that.

"excessive solar gain."..............versus the NEED for light.

This is something you resolve on the interior of windows. Aka roller screen shades

@JAN MOYER

"excessive solar gain."..............versus the NEED for light.

This is something you resolve on the interior of windows. Aka roller screen shades

Right, that's how we see it too. We'd rather start out by letting in more light, and then "adding" any sun blocking features as needed, than lock ourselves in into permanent darkness.

Our architect said yesterday "your house will not be too dark with the existing overhangs". Maybe so. But if it is, what's he going to do? So we asked him to look at the design we're proposing, and implement that into his design unless he sees some major issues with it.

The large portion of the day will still have a dark kitchen and that will also block light into the living room space, despite its shallower depth of overhang..........for some number of hours depending position of sun in sky. I'm not an earth scientist - can't say how many hours that may be : )

With our orientation on the lot, we'll be getting more sun into the living room and kitchen during the first half of the day. The kitchen overhang will indeed block some light from the living room in the afternoon, but that is what we want - let in the morning sun, keep out the hot afternoon sun.

Here are some views for September, for example.

10 am:

12 pm:

2 pm: