Which plans do you prefer?

[malcolm]

It was raining all day and I've been fiddling with plans. I have a 17th century building mucked about by Georgians and given a whole new facade by the Edwardians. 1950s man added a flat roof toilet block which is an aesthetic problem. This is roughly how it looks at the moment:

The space in the flat roof area is useful so I didn't want to demolish it for the sake of aesthetics. I have planning permission to stick a pitched roof on top. The architect reckoned something built with cheaper materials than the main house and submissive to the main house would be more likely to achieve planning permission.

It turns out the conservation officer loves quality materials and detail so I have a fair bit of scope. There was a pitched roof in this location before 1910 and it had a couple of dormer windows which matched the ancient houses across the street (which were demolished in the 1960s). I'm tempted to apply to add the dormer windows back in and oak frame the gable to match the original frame on the opposite gable.

It might be a bit Disney, but the whole place is already deliberately Disney and executed to a good standard. Is there anything you like or dislike about the last plan? Any thoughts about whether the details are right? The building was erected in 1646 but much modified, mostly by Edwardians who were going for a Tudor revival look. Are there any details I should get more right to match the look?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Yes Sir. I much prefer the mock Tudor half timbered effect to the black clapboard. There are loads of Edwardian shops and houses near me (in Birmingham), which have that mock wood frame going on and i think it looks great. The dormers look nice too but I don't think they are needed. The windows above the bay in the first plan look odd. The 2nd one is much better.

 

[mims&pip]

I'm with PP, Malcolm.......but then everyone here knows how much I love my Arts & Crafts and a bit of mock Tudor is often part and parcel of that look, so I guess I'm biased :wink:

Mims x

Edited to add: agree about the window over the bay in the main house building too, I'm afraid - it looks rather shoe-horned in and cramped. I would have the dormers though

 

[Flyfisher]

My immediate reaction is that the mock-tudor facade on the south elevation is slightly odd, in the sense of going to all that trouble on the 'side' of the house when such things are usually more forward-facing. However, I do like the dormers and imagine they would increase the general usefulness of the new roof space. So, in the absence of any other information, I'd vote for a 3rd option - dormers at the front and weatherboarding at the side. But those are mere details compared to the dramatic improvement of adding a pitched roof in the first place.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I'm sorry I don't really agree FF. Here is an example of a half timbered gable, practically at the top of my road. It is on the side of a building, but I suppose it does front a side street. I've seen this on the sides of Edwardian houses too where there is space enough between properties for it to be seen. If the half timbering is too sham, please don't do clapboard, I've only seen this on barns, temporary structures, on Grand Designs, and in the USA and I don't think it looks good. A plain brick gable would be better.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4514091,-1.8184129,3a,37.5y,342.35h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srAm-6kf7R0ce6i5FODVzsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

To add, here is a picture of a road round the corner from where i used to rent. You can tell I really moved down in the world when I bought :shock:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4397144,-1.8898554,3a,75y,264.96h,78.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDrJ-5a_IcPCsdfHT6AZgnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[malcolm]

There is a story behind the windows stuffed above the bay in the second drawing. Doing easy modifications to a very low ceiling house the Edwardians decided to knock two storeys into one with a lovely domed and wood trimmed double height ceiling behind the big bay window. The craftsmanship is amazing. A false ceiling was installed later on leaving a void which wastes space and annoys me. The extra windows were an attempt at regaining a third of the upstairs floor area with an extra large bedroom with knee high windows, but there were structural issues with this, and after living here a couple of years I'm thinking about opening up the well preserved double height ceiling instead.

Thanks for the thoughts. I expected you to pick up on completely different things. The house is right on the road and the adjoining buildings have disappeared so the gables are as visible as the facade. There is a corner in the road on this side but the opposite gable is visible from about half a mile away. I suppose I ought to be upgrading the gable treatment closer to near facade status. All the timber will be structural and in oak and I'll make an effort on the windows.

Any more ideas much appreciated.

 

[mims&pip]

On the subject of the double height/vaulted ceiling, I'd definitely open it back up if it were me

At our last-but-one house we had a lovely living room with vaulted ceiling - it had a real *wow* factor and made the house truly special imho* When we bought it the EA and vendors said it was built in the 1930s, which as it turned out was only half the story - in actual fact it was a Tudor building that was dismantled in the 1930s and rebuilt in a completely different part of the county, but to the casual observer it looked as though the house had been built in an earlier style using reclaimed materials.

Mims x

* I really need to reacquaint myself with adding pics so I could illustrate my argument for re-opening the ceiling :roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm sorry I don't really agree FF.

No need to apologise PP, you make some good points and your photo examples do, indeed, look very good and appropriate. But they are all 'whole' buildings whereas this example is very much an addition and I was thinking of the OP's comment "The architect reckoned something built with cheaper materials than the main house and submissive to the main house would be more likely to achieve planning permission.".

 

[malcolm]

Building regs won't allow weatherboarding. I think it is something to do with spread of fire just in case someone ever decided to build a new house in the middle of the road.

I think the frame will be nice if I get the details right, but the dormers might be a step too far. When the scaffolding comes down I can see what the house looks like which will probably help.

 

[Lime]

Yes Sir. I much prefer the mock Tudor half timbered effect to the black clapboard. There are loads of Edwardian shops and houses near me (in Birmingham), which have that mock wood frame going on and i think it looks great. The dormers look nice too but I don't think they are needed. The windows above the bay in the first plan look odd. The 2nd one is much better.

I prefer the half timbered look too.
I think it would look even better if the timbering mimicked the front elevation around the first floor window.

 

[TheRoost]

I like the dormers, seems to balance with the roof detail on the main roof.

The small single pane window on the extension though, i'm never keen on having smaller windows, with a different sill height, in between larger windows, to me it just looks a bit clumsy - just a thought.

 

[livias]

OK Just to throw another option into the ring ...
How about having one large dormer, similar in size to the large dormer on the left, but with its apex at the same height as the top of the two dormers you have drawn.
I feel that would give rythum (sp) to the whole facade and visually tie the new part in with the old giving it a certain balance. One large window will let in more light than two smaller too.

 

[malcolm]

One large dormer is an idea - I could mock tudor it!

I think two matching windows downstairs do look better. 110 years ago there was a window and a door, but I don't need a door. The current thinking for inside is to have a staircase to the right, a toilet to the left, and possibly a library in the remaining space. If I shuffle the windows to the side a tiny amount it ought to be possible to preserve privacy in the toilet.

 

[Flyfisher]

Building regs won't allow weatherboarding. I think it is something to do with spread of fire just in case someone ever decided to build a new house in the middle of the road.

Shouldn't the architect have known that and therefore not drawn it up as an option?

 

[steveb]

I hate to use the C word but I have seen modern cement render boards that I actually thought for several months was wooden weatherboarding until I watched the builder errect a new outbuilding and clad it. It had wood grain effect on it and was pre-painted, it might be an option

I think what he used was "Marley Cedral" - I guess also reassuringly expensive

 

[mims&pip]

I was going to mention Marley Cedral too - we were planning on using this to improve the appearance of the butt-ugly, cement rendered 1980 extension a previous owner added to the rear of our Georgian, ashlar stone thatched house. In the end we realised we'd spent far too much on a house we had decided to sell once completed, so didn't go ahead. We did get as far as obtaining samples and iirc it came in a few reasonably nice, period-ish colours :wink:

Still think the mock Tudor look would look better though!

Mims x

 

[formerly known as]

option 1 without the dormers .............. given 'fire' issue, would tile hanging work in your part of the world?

 

[malcolm]

I can't think of any other Arts and Crafts style houses in the village. There are plenty of very old timber framed houses, many have been updated and are rotting away under cement render, a few have the frames exposed. Other than that Georgian and Victorian brick houses are common, and the rest are 1960s onwards. Driving down the road most of the houses before mine have exposed timber gables.

My house is funny in that it was once very old and timber framed, was extended backwards in brick by the Georgians and a structural wood framed facade added by the Edwardians in front of the original. Around half of the original frame survives, though I replaced about 25% of that this year. The original frame wasn't intended to be exposed, but I copied it fairly accurately with the difference that my version is intended to be exposed.

I am having doubts about the dormers though. They would have to be very well detailed if they are to work.

 

[formerly known as]

can the existing structure take a first floor?

it could just be a single storied lean-to?

 

[malcolm]

Whether the structure can take a floor above depends entirely on me finding a decent structural engineer. Much of it did once support a second floor, but none of it has 1km deep foundations or whatever is deemed necessary these days. I anticipate a requirement for columns and will need to put a bit of thought into allowing for the relative movement that will occur between new and old structures (structural engineer won't think about that sort of thing - don't know their arses from their elbows most of them).

My temporary plan for the next couple of years is to paint the flat roof extension a different colour so I can pretend it belongs to someone else.