Well, there IS the whole 'wrong-size-for-the-windows' shutters... but some people don't care about that.

I don't care for the little overhang on the windows beside the garage.
I LOVE large porches - sad to see that go.

We really liked our original plan with the large porches, but the houses around us are all large brick and stone McMansions and we just felt the house would be too out of place. My wife and i decided we really want a sided, more understated look so at least the style of the house had to change. If I had my choice, we would build the house in a different area where it 'fit in' and I could enjoy my porch.

I see what you mean on the overhang above the first floor on the left of the garage. I think that is a remnant when the downstairs was slightly larger than the 2nd floor. Now they are same depth, will have it removed.

I'm not very knowledgable on shutters. What do you mean by undersized? Is it the larger 1st floor windows?

Re shutter sizes - Exterior shutters were originally made to actually CLOSE over windows - mainly to protect the glass during storms. If shutters are too big or too small to close over the window and actually protect it, then to us "shutter purists" they just looks silly. Thus, we would never put shutters on double ganged or triple-ganged windows because it is immediately obvious that they shutters are total fakes. Make sense?

I prefer much prefer your original elevation. IMHO, the railing around the flat roof covering your porch ("portico") also looks odd since you have no way to access that flat roof area except possibly to crawl out of that arched window. Plus, due to the way the roof is designed, quite a bit of water is going to flow off the second story roof onto that flat roof section. Flat roofs are MUCH more likely to develop leaks than sloped roofs so why use one when you have no particular reason for it.

Bevangel,

Thanks for the feedback.

Understood on the shutters. Definitely not correct but really just there to add some color to the front. I will have a new view drawn up without the shutters to see how we like it.

As far as the flat roof portico and railing, it seems to be the trend here. Some of the newer builds have gone to two story porticos with giant columns or a double flat roof two story portico. If you imagine McMansion heaven this is it.

We looked at homes without the railing and a flat roof and they looked too 'empty' on top. It is purely decorative - as you stated no way to get through the window to the porch.

Rain and the large water volume from the roof above is a worry. Will have to pay special attention to the gutter size above as well as a well designed water proofing for the porch area. Will probably still have issues down the road.

The best part for me on this design is that my wife loves it. That's a big win in the design and will probably override some good architectural design principles and the issues a flat roof may eventually bring.

Two questions- I am considering a stone wainscot. It would be under the windows, but not around the front door area. Any comments before I have the architect try it out.

Also, any thoughts on the lower windows with the extra valence at the top and how they look? Would it be better with a single taller window?

I have to say I prefer the first as well -- the second looks as if it's trying to be something it isn't at heart. It looks a bit pieced together to me - a little of this, a little of that. I also don't like the shutters -- especially on those windows with the transom tops. Curious why you added them? The first house with that lovely, inviting front porch was far less pretentious than the second. Like other posters, I like it MUCH better. Perhaps it's the neighborhood you should try to change... not the house? I would think you could expand that first layout without losing the welcoming porch and comfortable feel.

ctlady, - Seems to be an overwhelming GW vote for the original plans with the porch. The pressure was starting to get to me, so we went today and looked at the house that gave us the inspiration to change - we still loved that house, so will stick with the new design. I know it's not as inviting and bit pretentious (another McMansion for the neighborhood), but we are okay with that and are happy with our decision.

I will be playing with the front transom windows and the shutters. Not happy with that yet.

As a point of reference - Here is a picture of the house that we fell in love with and used as a starting point for the redesign.

Why not put a door or a full length window on the portico roof so it looks like you *can go out there?

I agree with the shutter size discrepancy.

On the right side why not put a bump-out or put a bay under that roof instead of having a kind of useless pent eave over the window?

Other than that I like the new elevation. I think the first one is a parent-less bland kind of neo-eclectic with too many gables, which everybody seems to l-o-o-ve right now for some reason.

The new elevation at least references a center-hall house with a left side addition, so it looks like it grew from one type of house to another.

palimpest - thanks for the suggestions.

I'm thinking that the valences should be taken away on the front windows and a slightly taller window used instead with a shutter of proper height to match.

Will try a full length window on the portico or at least a longer one. If I look at the house I referenced off of, the window is a bit longer also. Maybe even a window combination looking like a double french door.

That eave over the right side window is definitely going away. The 1st and 2nd floors are level now (we had to shrink the downstairs a bit for sq ft restrictions), so can be taken away. I like the idea of a small bump out or bay.

What do you think about a stone wainscot below the windows and skipping the front door area?

No to the stone wainscot, it wouldn't add anything other than being just another material, and wainscot height was almost never used classically...it is a rather come-lately "ornamentation" that doesn't reflect anything "structural", so it doesn't look genuine, it just looks tacked on. (Imo, but I am a stickler about materials indicating something "real" about the house).

If you wanted to keep to a conventional window on the second floor you could put a panel under it so it looked like a door or at least a jib door.

I would probably do taller windows rather than the window/transom combo. The transoms look a bit narrow and squinty-eyed.

What do you think about the following panel look for the window above the portico?
Might be an expensive custom panel to construct?

In the image just above, the shutters on the upstairs windows are very nearly correct. (Not quite but close enough to get away with it!) Now, if you'll just REMOVE the shutters on the downstairs triple-ganged windows, those of us who are shutter purists can stop shuddering!

BTW - it's interesting to note that the shutters on the upstairs of your "inspiration house" appear to be hung correctly. Notice how the shutter overlaps the trim around the window and the hinge is attached TO the trim right next to the window so that it looks like the each shutter COULD swing on it's hinges to cover 1/2 of the window. It even looks like they went to the effort and expense of adding "shutter dogs" to complete the authentic look. But then, somebody totally blew it by then adding totally non-functional looking shutters to the triple-ganged windows downstairs.

I like the customized panel look. It helps make the upper window look like it might be a door leading to the upper portico.

Agree with pamplisett 100 percent about skipping the whole "stone wainscotting" look.

I've seen paired windows successfully done where each window has an operable bifold (two leaves hinged in the center) shutter that stacks against the wall when open). Similar to what has been done for interior shutters even for single windows. For triple grouped windows, skip the shutters.

I'm not educated or talented enough to say what is wrong, but something is wrong with your facade proportionally to keep it from looking like your inspiration house. Yes the inspiration house is a mcmansion type, and I've seen many, but it is a reasonably attractive version. Somehow, your version is not as good....I don't know if it has to do with ceiling height, roof lines or pitches, or what, but it's not getting you where you want to go. If you're going through the expense of building a home, you might as well get exactly what you want. (To that end, if it were me, I would ignore the neighboring houses and build what I like...after all it's my money.)

Re the front porch of the earlier version...how much I like front porches has to do with what part of the country I'm in...if it's in the hot south, they are wonderful, but in the cold north, they block too much light.

Annie,
I stared at the two views (inspiration vs my elevation) and came up with a couple of differences that may be contributing to what you are seeing.

The overall height of the portico is higher in mine. In the reference house, railing only reaches the bottoms of the 2nd story windows, but in mine it is a third of the way up the window. The rail posts are longer. The porch itself is also higher. I think this makes the portico seem larger and takes over the front.

The center window is much higher in mine. It seems to float in the middle of the floor. The center window in the reference elevation is much lower (below the 2nd floor windows).

My second floor windows are connected, leading to the shutter issues. This might be the biggest difference.
The windows have a larger casing detail especially at the tops.

And lastly there is an overhang between the 2nd and 1st floor that provides a horizontal break.

Some items for me to play with and see how it looks.

The front of the house is northern exposure, so with porches in the front, would be dark.

If you want to change who you are to fit in with the popular kids in school rather than be true to yourself, then at least get those details correct by eliminating those transoms and making the second floor taller so the portico isn't such a Jimmy Durante schnozz. That whole section needs to be inset more, or the gables pulled forward more in order to be more proportionate. It gives undue emphasis to the widow's walk rather than the home's actual entry. And NO to the old man high waisted pants "wainscoting" of a different cladding. It's one of those Neo detail that grates on the vision for most people without them understanding why they find it "wrong". (Heavy materials like stone should be used where the would be if they were actually real, such as the foundation, or on an entire "wing" as separate structure. Like they did the garage in your inspiration pic.)

hollysprings - This was the first draft from the architect after modifying the original plans, so some features such as the transom windows, the 2nd floor windows being glued together and the smallish center window carried forward from that design.

It definitely needs cleanup - as you stated, the portico takes over the front of the house. Its a combination of things such as height, depth, railing length, the upper gable depth and window size that make it seem so dominant.

I will be meeting with my architect tomorrow and try to get a lot of these mods into a new iteration. Hopefully will help bring the design closer to my 'inspiration' as well as more architecturally correct.

And yes - we have eliminated the stone from the equation. My wife is happy as she dislikes every house that has the stone in front as a wainscot trim.

While you are cleaning up, I would recommend taking the front facing gable off the front of the garage.

Also the hip roofs and the gables should Not all have the same pitch. The main roof should be highest and each roof with lesser hierarchy should have a lesser pitch. Matching all the pitches seems to be something that people started doing spontaneously in the last quarter of the 20th c. and it is wrong according to classical architecture, and is one of the things that creates a static house--and sometimes a cartoonish house.

Another thing about the shutters, if you do them. Louvers UP when they are open, so that they would be louvers down when closed over the windows. This is done incorrectly so much of the time that the correct way looks wrong, but it's not.

palimpsest - thanks for the further recommendations.

We originally added (old plans) the gable over the garage because it looked a bit barren. It does serve no real purpose but to add something to the 25 foot space. With the garage now having a hip roof, I guess it looks out of place. Will get a view with and without and decide if still need it.

I think I understand the pitch description. The two front gables should have a smaller pitch than they have now. Is that correct?

Never knew there was so much to shutters. If I go with non-louvered, guess it becomes a non-issue.