Have you seen the plan for the second house?

I much prefer the appearance of the white house, and perhaps the kinks the floorplan of the first house, like the oddly shaped upstairs bedrooms may be able to be worked out by simplifying the façade/roof and floorplan all that the same time.

I understand having a floorplan that gets out of control and too expensive- been there.

I much prefer the look of the farmhouse style plan you've posted. I'm a sucker for a farmhouse, though. Especially in white.

I'm by no means an expert, but the proportions of the first plan seems wrong. To my eye, the front porch gable area is too short in comparison to the highest gable. The house seems top heavy to me. I think this is more apparent in the rendering; the angle the picture is taken at minimizes the effect.

There's also a lot of different levels, so to speak, with the rooflines. There's the roofline to the left of the door, to the right of the door, the center gable, the two gables up top, and the garage.

Are you planning on working with a designer or architect, or are you trying to find a plan and have the builder make modifications?

palimpsest: I have not seen the plan for the second house. I'm not sure the floor plan is available. I just googled "modern farmhouse" and found it. I would be curious to see it though.

ash- I'm not yet sure who will make the modifications. I plan to send my modification request to the online site and they will provide an estimate for the modifications. I might also contact the original architect, but he's in NC and since we are building in WA I'm not sure if it is wise given the differences in building code between states. I might just use a local draftsman. I may ask the builder for his advice on who to use.

I was hoping to keep the home as is originally (to save on cost and headache) but deep down I prefer the farmhouse look too. Although, around here the original design doesn't look so out of place.

I wonder how complicated it would be to turn the main gable so that it is like the farmhouse inspiration photo. It seems to me that it wouldn't be a big deal and would allow for the main part of the house to be a simple box, which should be cheaper construction-wise, right? It would cause the second floor to be larger, but again a simple box has to be less than the current design?

olivesmom -- I hope you'll get input from the very knowledgeable experts on this site. Not being one of them, I'd still hazard a guess that rather than trying to re-jigger the floorplan you posted into a farmhouse, it would be easier to start with a floorplan that is designed as a farmhouse and go from there. Here are a few ideas in case you are interested in looking:

http://houseplans.southernliving.com/plans/SL1718?&&&search%5Bcustom_search%5D=true&search%5Bvendor%5D=237

http://www.simplyeleganthomedesigns.com/withrow-farmhouse-plan.html

http://www.connorbuilding.com/HomeDisplay.aspx?HomeID=262

http://www.connorbuilding.com/HomeDisplay.aspx?HomeID=100

http://www.connorbuilding.com/HomeDisplay.aspx?HomeID=92

www.allisonramseyarchitect.com/fullpage.cfm?id=432‎

Or maybe take your wish list and a bunch of photos to an architect and have her work it out for you?

Good luck and have fun!

A local architect can create you something for less money and headaches than trying to modify something long distance and then still have to sub out the engineering locally.

I too can relate to houses growing beyond your desire as you keep adding features. That's why it took us 7 years to finally come up with a house plan we really liked. They kept getting too big, we'd rip it up and start all over again. The problem is, when designing a home, there are always trade offs that have to be made....trade offs that can be fixed with add'l sq footage. And so it goes.

Pardon my brutal honesty, but I hate that first house. I mean it just looks so wrong for so many reasons...the massing, the balance, the multiple roof pitches, the emphasis, the gables, the siding. It just isn't good. It's trying to be something it isn't. It lacks integrity.

I actually felt a physical relief when I saw the second house. It is wonderful, traditional, homey and will last many lifetimes.

I agree with LW Oak...a good architect can get you there faster, better and in the long run cheaper.

Here some info on the white farmhouse.

http://www.hometourdallas.com/homes.php?homeFeature=B

http://www.dallasnews.com/lifestyles/home-and-gardening/headlines/20121102-dallas-architects-new-house-is-simple-with-a-sense-of-history.ece?ssimg=772218#ssStory772219

Thanks for the feedback so far. I don't dislike the first house. I do not care for the siding choices at all, and I think it would look a million times better with something else, but the house itself is fine to me. You have to take into account where I live, the pacific northwest. I feel like this area doesn't have the historical homes that other parts of the country have, that there isn't much of an architectural identity (or something- not sure how to word that). I like the farmhouse, but if not done with some "northwest elements" it might look slightly out of place.

As far as hiring an architect, pretty much I've ruled that out. I flat out refuse to believe that it would be worth it. All I can see are $$$ going out. There's just no way it would be cost effective. I like this floorplan so why reinvent things completely? The builder's local draftsman charges around $2,500 for complicated changes, so that plus the plans which I think are $1,600 for the CAD = $4,100 for a plan we'd be happy with. A good architect in the Seattle are will be much more than that and I'm fairly confident the whole process will frustrate me.

Can anyone comment on how difficult or not it would be to turn the gable and have the main portion of the house (both first and second story) be more of a box? To me it seems like it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but as a layperson I have no knowledge about this sort of thing.

Also, any opinion on the soffits?

You could probably square off the floorplan of the house enough to get a simpler roof on it, yes.

One of the things that bugs me about the façade is the tiny looking windows, and I am not sure how much you could do about that on the left hand side because the windows open onto two toilets and a bathtub. Maybe if the porch ran lengthwise you could disguise this somewhat.

I don't mind the tray ceilings so much but whatever is going on the greatroom, that ceiling is awful, with the fixture looking like it is hanging off a ledge and the triangular bit dropping down on the right. I would want that cleaned up: it's unpleasant and unsettling.

What about something like this?

Here is a link that might be useful: Kensington

This post was edited by swtceleb on Sat, May 11, 13 at 16:56

Wow, look at that! A shed dormer stacked inside a gable roof shape! Who would have thought?

This takes the dreaded Stacked Gables to a new low. Absolutely incredible. What's next?

Glad you posted this one--if someone had described it verbally I wouldn't have believed it--Eclectic Mish-mash style.

If you want to go with a craftsman/adirondack style home that would be more comfortable in the Pac NW, that's fine, but it should be well done. An architect will get you there. I don't believe that first plan will. It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of execution of the style for functionality and taste.

It's one thing to take a stock plan and move a non-load bearing wall this way or that or move a doorway or add shutters. It's a whole 'nother thing to start making structural changes to the building without regard for what it does to the exterior or the structural integrity. There were countless ways in which our architect made our home right, structurally, visually, functionally, site wise, and material uses that the builder would not have been able to do on his own. And he was able to see things we couldn't see and catch them early while they were still easy to fix. If nothing else, it helps to have a second set of eyes watching the process from beginning to end that is very valuable.

If you are happy with a stock plan that needs a few tweaks, then go for it. But if you find that every stock plan requires you to do major readjusting, then you really need to spend a little more up front to save a lot down the road.

palimpsest: The small square windows are one of the things I like most about the exterior. I want to keep some of them for sure. Here's the world's worst sketch of what I'm thinking:

These photos have been in my inspiration folder for a while now and have some similarities

And yes, the living room ceiling is terrible. I do not understand why the architect thought that was attractive.

Your all white inspirations are very nice, the form of the last one is fine but it suffers from too many materials and excessive ornament that doesn't make sense with the form.

I am not against small square windows but I find the identical groups of three with no variation off putting.

The house very much reminds me of houses where I grew up that started out looking very much like your white inspiration and subsequently had the porches closed in and most of the large double hungs replaced with tiny awning windows creating a rather "blind" appearance.

duplicate

This post was edited by palimpsest on Sat, May 11, 13 at 17:40

swtceleb: Virgil may think that frank betz house is an abomination, but I don't think it's so bad. Actually I think the floorplan is pretty good and the exterior is pleasing to me, shed dormer inside gable and all, lol. And it would be easy enough to remove the upper gable and just have the shed dormer, though maybe that room would become smaller. I wonder what the construction costs would be compared to a boxier version of what I'm looking at. The only thing I dont care for is how small and compact it seems. We will be building on a few acres, so the house can be wider.

I'm so excited to see the plans you're interested in and to read the discussion here.

I have two observations to contribute, one is pragmatic and the other is economic:
1. The linen closets are way too small for a house this size.
2. Why not hire a professional known as House Plan Designer or Building Designer, preferably a member of AIBD (the American Institute of Building Design) to fine tune your design ideas? Typically, a building designer is more affordable than an architect; more objective than asking your builder (who may steer you towards what he/she knows how to build with the best profit margin), and often more experienced than many architects who may design only a few residences during their careers and many builders as well, since many builders have a limited portfolio that they build.

I also can relate to your wanting to pare down a design so it doesn't feel like living in (or cleaning) a McMansion.

olivesmom -- did you take a look at the first two house plans for which I provided URLs above? I ask because the massings in those two look similar to your first two photos posted at 17:24.

Olivesmom - Yes, I think the Frank Betz house would definitely need some tweaking on the exterior IMO (I agree with Virgil's comments there!), but thought it was definitely doable and layout I also thought was pretty good.

Best of luck in your decision-making!

Oaktown: I saw the simply elegant one, and while I like the exterior the floor plan doesn't work for me. Somehow I skipped over the first link, just checked it out and it is very nice. I like it a lot, reminds me of the old farmhouses in PA. I like the floorplan too, just not sure about the traffic flow through the kitchen, that might drive me crazy. I also wonder how difficult it would be do add a bonus room o er the garage. I wish they had photos of it completed, it helps so much to see the inside. Thanks for suggesting it, it's on my short list!

This post was edited by olivesmom on Sat, May 11, 13 at 18:35

Not trying to bombard you, but I'll throw this out too anyway. Here's one that might sort of be in keeping with some of your other photos that you like. I'm sure you could extend some walls, shorten some others (like keeping room) in an effort to obtain more of a box/rectangle footprint.

Here is a link that might be useful: Romney-A

olivesmon, all of the white houses in your last set of photos are great, IMO! Where did you find the one with the turquoise truck? It's gorgeous!

The one overwhelming quality that all of these have is authenticity! They have everything that is needed for good design, and not a single thing more.

These "white" examples are at the opposite extreme of the last example you posted. I hope you see, understand and appreciate the difference between the first three photos and the last one. And it has nothing to do with the color of paint!

Good luck on your project!

Virgil: I recognize the difference between the white examples and the last one I posted. But I do think that if you removed the arch above the windows and simplified the siding it wouldn't be so far off.

I don't know anything about the house with the turqoise truck, just googled "modern" farmhouse" and it came up. I do think it is striking, but a bit too modern for my family. Somewhere in between that and a typical farmhouse is what I'm aiming for. Strong clean lines, maybe an interesting window shape (squares?) and a few pacific northwestern-y touches like cedar timber frame porches or posts.

That living room ceiling is truly bizarre and even some of the other ceilings confuse the reading of the spaces. There is not enough definition of the spaces with walls or columns.

Go with simple massing like the farmhouse examples, even if you change the materials and some details. Save your money and the skills of the builder for a few carefully selected fine materials, well-detailed and well-executed. I really like the first white farmhouse, but would do a single door and all metal roof. On so many houses people just put metal roofs on porch roofs (where it's barely seen and chunky eave returns (where there shouldn't be steep and have nice roof materials) but asphalt everywhere else.

And virgilcarter, what bothers me just as much about the shed within gable frankenhouse is that it has what appear to be nicely detailed operable shutters--which might act to legitimize the rest of the mess. Back in architecture school I had a classmate who would always have a lot of ideas--many of them good--but due to lack of editing these would all be forced into one project...when some of them should have ended up on the floor or saved for the next project.

This post was edited by dadereni on Sun, May 12, 13 at 7:41

Dadereni wrote, "... Back in architecture school I had a classmate who would always have a lot of ideas--many of them good--but due to lack of editing these would all be forced into one project...when some of them should have ended up on the floor or saved for the next project..."

Excellent point! This is a major difference between good design and builder's "plop". If one scans through all of the illustrations on this thread one will immediately see that the stock plans and builder's houses have a wild mish-mash of forms, shapes, proportions, materials and details--all forced onto a single house! For example, there are multiple roof shapes and materials, multiple window shapes, sizes and types, and siding materials often look like a demonstration project for a half-dozen different manufacturers!

One of my favorite examples of builder's frou-frou are the second floor window planter boxes shown on the house drawings. I wonder how many folks with have their potting soil, watering can, hand spades and cultivators in the bedrooms on the second floor to properly tend to those flowers! Don't forget that most annuals need to be changed out every 3-4 months or more often. Sure look good in the drawings, though!

The well designed examples, however, can be quickly seen to have relatively few and well-integrated shapes, proportions, materials and details. The result is an authenticity lacking in the builder's designs--an overall harmonious unity of shape, proportion, materials and detailing. Roofs are simple and unified because the plans are simple; the proportions are pleasing and human scaled; the choice of materials and detailing is elegantly simple, but never plain!

Good design does not need excess! Or mish-mash!

Someone, earlier in the thread, said, "...well, we could just change the curved roof shapes (there are two "lonely" curved roof shapes in the referenced example), make some changes here and there and the design might be fine for us..."

And it's true--one could make changes here and there, with a result that might be "fine" for them and their tastes. The point, however, is that one is starting with something that is poorly designed at the outset and trying to change some of the exterior decoration and, perhaps, move a few partitions around on the inside in order to make it "fine" and "acceptable".

A sow's ear is a sow's ear, no matter how much one decorates or undecorates it! It's very difficult, time-consuming and questionable expense to start with a poor design and try to improve it.

This is, of course, the challenge of starting with stock plans and builder's models. Many are simply mish-mash plop. Almost none of these plans are really designed for anyone's life style, family size, property conditions, local climate, local regulatory requirements, etc.

These designs are generic and generalized--they attempt to include every feature and desirable material in their plan configurations, that is brought up in discussions such as this. The designs are a "library" of all of the currently trendy features from the builder's shows. They tend to be demonstration houses for materials manufacturers.

By trying to design something for anyone and everyone, the result is that they really relate to no one!

The result is that virtually everyone has to attempt to modify them and personalize them by starting from a poor and ill-fitting initial example.

It's usually much better to start with and develop a "good" result, based on one's personalized needs and wants, whether we are talking about house design or anything else.

Of course, everyone is different and good design may not be all that important, or, alternatively, one may think a lot of the mish-mash is good design.

Everyone's mileage will vary and that's OK!

Olivesmom, I do think if you stripped off the all extraneous façade detail (and it is All pretty much extraneous imo) from your last example, you would end up with something very close to your white house examples. Shave off the front 12-18" off the first story and the house is fairly plain.

I like the floorplan, but I find the exterior a bit busy. Admittedly, my taste in exteriors runs to simple. I like some of the farmhouses that've been shown here.

As for the floorplan, I have a couple thoughts, all dealing with bedrooms:

- You've already said you'd likely flip-flop the master bedroom and bathroom. Excellent idea. The master doesn't have a whole lot of light, while the bathroom is facing the front of the house. You may lose natural light in the bathroom, but I see this as a good trade-off.

- Still on the master topic, imagine yourself walking in the garage door -- something you'll do on a regular basis -- and wanting to to straight to your bedroom to drop your things and change clothes. You have to walk through the kitchen, the living room and the foyer. While you're moving the bathroom, I'd arrange some sort of door from the back entry to the master bedroom.

Two bonuses of flipping the bedroom and bathroom: This will give you a more direct route between the master and the laundry room. And it will consolidate your downstairs plumbing to the middle of the house.

- Upstairs, do you plan to use the bonus room as a room? If so, you're set . . . If not, I'd take in that hallspace to make the smallest bedroom larger . . . and have a bonus room /storage entrance through that bedroom.

OR, if you really only need two bedrooms, consider leaving that smallest bedroom "open" and it becomes an upstairs TV room or playroom . . . and you still have the opening into the storage area from that room.

I apologize that I haven't read all of the responses, but I just had to post that the white house looks just like our house! It is a Southern Living House Plan called Mama Crovatt's House, which we bought and made major modifications to:
Added 2 car garage.
Created a huge mud room/ laundry room area.
Took the master off the back and put it upstairs over the living room for now...with plans to add it downstairs in the original location in about 5 years when the kids are older.
Here is an exterior shot... I don't really want to post our floor plan, but you can do a google image search and find lots of pics of this house...

Angel, your house is very pretty and I like your version better than the one that's shown on the SL website!

Olivesmom, coming out of lurkerdom to note that although you say you like the small windows across the front, all your inspiration photos and farmhouse pic show really large lovely windows....Penny G.

If you like craftsman style, have you given any thought to actually using a real craftsman plan? Here are some from Gustav Stickley:

I'd say that if you're going to have a plan altered, you might as well have something authentic and well-designed to begin with, right?

Most are free online, and there are some great books with complete historical plans:

Here is a link that might be useful: Craftsman Homes plan books

@virgil carter
Here is a link to the architects website for that modern white farmhouse... it's my husband's favorite "inspiration" home so far. http://www.fgharchitects.com/project.php?project=2

@olivesmom
I have nothing helpful to suggest, but my inspiration folder looks alot like yours. I can't wait to watch you move forward with your design. I hope you blog about it or at least post lots of pictures! :)

Here is a link that might be useful: modern farmhouse turquoise truck

R, thanks very much. I found it and agree with your husband: it's a knock-out of a design!