Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
historic_infill

Historic infill Victorian house

Historic_Infill
11 years ago

A. About Us: We are in our late 30s with two kids, ages 5 and 2 (no plans for more kids). We live in a mid-sized town in the upper Midwest (short, cool summers and long, cold winters). We are busy with many outdoor family activities. We often entertain friends with kids of similar ages, and sometimes host work-related social events. We currently live in a 100-year-old American foursquare house (1,750 sq. ft. above ground; partially finished basement) in the historic district that is walking distance to downtown entertainment and a protected river basin. We love the neighborhood and the character of the house, but as the kids get bigger we are outgrowing the space (only one full bath, no mud room, small entertaining space, limited storage space, no privacy for adults).

B. The Project: Last year we bought a nearby 80'x140' vacant lot with the plan to build a larger, "new" old house (3,200 sq. ft. above ground; unfinished basement). Our block is on the National Register of Historic Places, which adds some restrictions on the scale and outside appearance of new construction (e.g., must be 2.5 story Victorian, wood/fiber cement clapboard siding, substantial front porch, detached garage at back of property, double-hung windows). There are no restrictions on the floor plan or materials used inside the house. We want a semi-open floor plan with interior building materials and style matching the character of our current American foursquare. We will receive bids from several general contractors at the end of January, with ground breaking in spring. We plan to live in the house for the next 25 years, and will likely downsize in retirement.

C. House Orientation: The front of the house faces southwest. That is, the sun room faces east (morning sun), the kitchen/covered side porch face southeast (mid-day sun), and the dining room faces west-southwest (late day sun). The detached, two-car garage (24'x30'; not shown) will be located in the back north corner of the property. The best views are southwest (beautiful Queen Anne homes across the street), the south (my future vegetable garden) and the east (mature trees at the back of the property).

D. Basement: The basement will be unfinished (no drawings provided) and used for storage and as a kids play room (floor hockey!).

E. 1st floor: The mud room is essential (lots of stuff for long, cold winters and active outdoors). With the detached garage at the back, we will almost always enter the house via the mud room. We want an open family room and kitchen area for entertaining. The kitchen is designed for two cooks. We will likely have a wood stove for the fireplace, with the TV located in a cabinet to the right of the wood stove. Front covered porch will be increased to 8 feet deep; mainly to sit and watch our kids play in the neighborhood. Larger covered porch on the side will be used for summer meals and entertaining (there will also be a 500 sq. ft. brick patio next to the porch). We will likely eat breakfast and snacks at the kitchen island, with family dinners and larger gatherings in the dining room. Outside of meal time, the dining room will double as a work space (e.g., kid's crafts and homework, home office;...we do this in our current home). The sun room serves as a quiet space with French doors that can be closed.

F. 2nd floor: We tried to avoid hallways; instead there is a single landing area. We prefer an upstairs laundry room, despite the small risk of flooding. The kids will share a single bathroom. The guest suite serves two purposes. First, while the kids are still young, this will be our master bedroom so that we can stay close. Second, we frequently have relatives stay with us for 1-2 weeks at a time and the guest suite will give them some privacy.

G. Attic: Once the kids are older, the attic will become our master suite. There is a small porch off the bedroom for morning coffee. There will also be some comfortable chairs in the bedroom for lounging/reading (not shown). The master suite is larger than needed, but we are struggling with how to reduce the footprint and still keep the only windows in the bedroom and bathroom.

H. Front and back elevation: We will use wood clapboard siding and the porches will be mostly of wood construction (to match nearby homes). The rather expensive chimney will be eliminated since we are switching to a wood stove. The shed dormer on the west side will be changed to a gable (i.e., to match the east side gable). The bottom 24 inches of exposed foundation will be covered in brick (common for area homes). The oval window at the front peak is decorative, although we are considering running a solar tube from the window to bring light to the walk-in closet (depends on cost). The small porch at the back peak is off the master bedroom (partial view of downtown and the river). Some modest decorative trim will be added to the gable peaks and porches to help capture the Victorian style (not shown)

Sorry for the long introduction (my first post). I am posting floor plans and elevation drawings below. We would really appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

1st floor....

Comments (51)

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Attic...

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Front elevation

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Back elevation

  • virgilcarter
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Always good to see a "new" old house being considered. Your plans seem straightforward, although I see a couple of concerns, depending on your lifestyle, patience and preferencts:

    --First floor common area is large, but there's no place to "get away", to watch TV without bothering others, to keep kid's toys out of the adult area, etc.
    --You could get better efficiency out of the second floor bath and adjacent laundry, with a hall closet for storage;
    --I can't imagine the idea of a master suite in the attic once the kids are gone. That's the time to consolidate and simplify one's live, not to have to climb more stairs and keep more of the house clean.

    There's something very much out of proportion with your elevations. The first floor height appears to be much less than the second floor height (and perhaps the attice height), which gives the house a very top-heavy propotion. Check your floor to floor heights and adjust your proportions to be more pleasing.

    Also, it's unclear about the "wings" shown on the first floor elevation about the bay windows. There seems no reason for them by looking at the plan.

    Your front elevation is seriously "over-gabled" and "over finished", detracting from the look of an old house and signaling some sort of builder's 21 centry approach to aesthetics. Finally, your fenestration is inconsistent and thus, attracts attention where it should not.

    The key to improving your elevations is: simplify, simplify, simplify.

    Hope this helps. Good luck with your project.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for the feedback virgilcarter. In response to your very helpful comments:

    I suppose our "get away" spaces will be the sun room, covered side porch or master bedroom. We prefer to have just a single TV in a common space of the house.

    There is already one modest sized 2nd floor linen closet off the landing. However, more storage should probably be added in the laundry room.

    Regarding the master suite in the attic, we plan to start using this from the time both kids are 5+ years of age until they leave the house (about a 15 year period). Afterwards, we would likely move down to the 2nd floor guest suite until downsizing altogether in retirement.

    I agree the proportions between 1st and 2nd floor elevations appear skewed. The first floor is 9' and the second floor 8', but this isn't reflected in the elevations. Some simplification of the front exterior, including removing the "wings" over the dining room windows would help.

    Regarding the window fenestration, you are correct that there should not be a mix of patterns (this issue was raised when our initial plans were reviewed by the local historic commission). In the next version of the elevation drawings all windows will be one-over-one.

    Again, thanks for the feedback.

  • mrspete
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I disagree with VirgilCarter about the need for an "away space" on the first floor. You have the sunroom AND ample space on the bedroom level.

    Is that a sink in the mudroom? It's a nice feature, but since it's the only plumbing anywhere remotely in that area, it's going to be an expensive item -- and the kitchen is within sight. I don't think I'd be willing to pay for that.

    Likewise, another feature for which I wouldn't be willing to pay is the clipped corner on the sunroom. Yes, it makes for a nice entrance with the double-doors, but it'd be cheaper to just square off the corner. You could set a sofa at an angle and put a plant or floorlamp behind it and get the same effect -- for much less money.

    I'm not clear on the kitchen island/table. Does the island sort of "grow out" to become a round table? If so, I don't care for it, but I'm a fan of simple-shaped islands. I'd vote for a free-standing table. As your children grow, you may feel the need to switch to a larger/smaller table. Personally, I've had three different kitchen tables in two different houses in my 22 years of marriage (and right now I'm back to the one I used originally). Also, this looong island/table thing-y is an obstacle you'll be walking around constantly -- when you want to walk from the kitchen to the family room, when you want to walk from the far end of the kitchen to the pantry. Two separate items would be vastly superior.

    I love the big pantry. In fact, you seem to have excellent storage overall -- always a good thing!

    I would switch your stove and sink areas, and I'd make a pass-through cabinet between the kitchen and the dining room. This'd allow you to put dishes in from the kitchen side, then take them out directly in the dining room side. An elderly relative of mine had this feature (in a very modest farm house) when I was a child, and I always loved it.

    Upstairs, these are generous bedrooms. They should serve you well for years to come. I think your "the house will grow when we need it to do so" plan is a good one, and if you should decide against it, I think you have plenty of space anyway.

    What will you do when these long-term guests come to stay before you move to the attic? I'm guessing you'll do what we did when we were kids: The kids'll move into a room together, and the guests'll get a kid-room. Perfectly fine.

    One comment on your bathrooms: Your vanities aren't all that spacious. I'd downsize to one sink per bathroom. Sinks are expensive, and people almost never use them at the same time anyway. The real "cost" of double sinks, however, is in the storage. With the sinks as you've planned them, you'll have essentially no drawer storage next to the sink. I know that my girls would gladly give up their double sinks if they could have more drawers in the bathroom.

    You really have more space than you need in the laundry room. You could easily "push it back" a bit, make it a shorter, more square room, and that'd give you space on the hallway landing for a built-in desk or reading chair. Or, you could do the same thing in that closet-off-the-landing-spot. You have the storage elsewhere.

    In fact, that landing is room-sized -- what is it? Something like 7x12? It'll be a big, comfortable space. I'd try to use it for something other than an over-sized pass-though.

    I do not care for the future master bathroom. So much empty space in the middle. Expensive empty space.

    Overall, I like the house. It's very pretty and the spaces look to be functional for the most part.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for the feedback Mrs Pete. Keep the great comments coming!

    Yes there is a sink in the mudroom and yes it will likely be expensive. I would prefer to have it there for all the outdoor mess, but if the cost is too high we will make do with the nearby kitchen sink.

    Regarding the sun room entrance, are you suggesting squaring the corner and adding a single door? I agree this would be cheaper than French doors, but the latter will allow more morning sun into the house interior. Tough call.

    Regarding the kitchen island table, this has been my nemesis throughout the design phase! I have gone back and forth between this style versus a separate, 4-seat kitchen table. Any other votes?

    We love the large pantry as well. The lack of a pantry in our current house is a real problem.

    The current drawings call for an open pass-through between the kitchen and dining room for the reasons you describe. Why do you suggest switching the kitchen and stove locations?

    Before my wife and I move into the attic master suite in a few years, our two kids will stay together in the same room when guests visit. We do this now with only 3 bedrooms.

    I really like your idea of going from a two-sink to a one-sink vanity, at least in the kid's bathroom. Good catch!

    I agree the laundry room is larger than needed. The dimensions (15' x 8'6") just kinda worked out that way in the end. We'll look at making this room more square to open more space in the 2nd floor landing (currently about 7' x 16'). Any suggestions for additional functions we could add to the landing?

    Finally, yes the master bathroom has too much space. We are working to shrink the master suite as a whole, but are unsure how best to approach this (the position of the stairs is fixed and we still want to keep the bedroom and bathroom windows).

    Thanks again.

  • _sophiewheeler
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The kitchen layout is pretty bad for cooking and for traffic flow. Get rid of the godawful island that blocks traffic through the space and the corner range than limits cooking to one single person. Hopefully the kids will want to grow up to help and learn to cook, and this is a kitchen that that would be impossible to do in.

    Also, the refrigerator is too interior to the kitchen and the large pantry is actually too large if you also have a basement for extra bulk storage. For entertaining, when you use the dining room, no one wants to be able to see the kitchen mess. Put a wall there, and a door. Anything more casual should be done in the family space with an actual breakfast area.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks hollysprings for the kitchen comments and revised drawing.

    I agree the angled island is awkward. The feedback I'm getting suggests I should return to my original plan of a separate 4-seat kitchen table for informal dining. With the angled part removed, I think the flow is OK with just a rectangular 2'6"x7' island without seating (it gives us precious counter space). The distance between the island and pantry is 4'8" (i.e., kitchen flow-through traffic) and between the island and the wall cabinets is 4' (space for two cooks). And yes my kids are already in cooking class so this space definitely needs improvement.

    Your comment about the corner range and two cooks is valid. We have this arrangement now and it didn't really occur to me how inconvenient this can be. As an alternate solution I might follow Mrs. Pete's advice and move the stove in front of the window and place the sink in the corner (two people never do dishes in our house).

    Regarding the refrigerator, I agree it is too buried in the kitchen (a friend already commented on this). I was thinking to move it to the opposite wall in the east corner down from the double sink and next to the patio door.

    Is a pantry with interior dimensions of ~4'6" x 5'6" really too big? Any others with thoughts on this? I agree we can store infrequently accessed bulk items in the basement, but anything I might access a few times per week should be close to the kitchen.

    I agree that we should avoid direct views of the messy kitchen while seated in the dining room. The best compromise might be to add the wall and door as you suggest, but also include Mrs. Pete's pass-through. The main reason we kept this more open was to be able to use the nearby kitchen counter as a serving area, but maybe this is too informal.

    Thanks again for your comments. My wife and I will certainly give your revised drawing some serious consideration.

  • palimpsest
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think one of the problems with the elevation is that the windows look much too small on the second floor of the house, particularly in the front bay and there appears to be one missing to the right of the bay (in the guest closet). This should have a window in it (perhaps an oval or octagon) even if it is covered with a window treatment to avoid fading things in the closet.

    The elevation currently reminds me of a Victorian that was remodeled with smaller replacement windows and new siding.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your comment palimpsest. Could you please explain Victorian window sizes to our draftsman!

    I should probably give some background as to how we arrived at the current drawings. First, we drafted our list of "wants" versus "needs" for the new house. Next, we searched books and web sites for examples of historic house plans. After selecting features and layouts that we liked, we next started working with a draftsman at the lumber yard we are using for the project. What you see here is about the 5th iteration of these now customized plans.

    I am very concerned about creating a home that "fits in" with the existing 1880-1910 period homes on our block. We do not need to create a reproduction-quality home, just something that blends with the surroundings. With regard to the windows, I have tried to research sizes, trim patterns and mass, materials, fenestration patterns, and placement on period homes. Although our draftsman has been great to work with, he has no experience with historic infill homes. I have provided him with pictures of windows from nearby houses, and window dimensions from our current 1913 American foursquare, but somehow this information gets lost in translation. I even hired as a consultant a local architect who was recommended as experienced with historic projects, but he didn't provide much input.

    Regarding your specific comments, I agree we need to add at least a small, oval window at the front for the guest suite closet. As well, the 2nd floor windows need to be revised to match the size and fenestration of the first floor windows (i.e., tall and narrow double-hung with one-over-one pattern).

    For all of you "new" old home builders out there...how did you achieve the correct proportions/spacing of windows and doors to give the appearance of an old house? Were you able to achieve this through your own research or did you hire an architect? I am hesitant to invest several thousand dollars on an architect at this stage, but I also want to make sure we do this project right.

  • mrspete
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Glad to be helpful -- I'm full of opinions, which I spout forth freely!

    As for the sink, you recognize that it's useful but expensive. I'd make a list of things that you're willing to cut (perhaps in priority order?) so that IF you're forced to make cuts, you've already considered items that're wants rather than needs.

    Sunroom, no, no -- I didn't explain myself well. I'm suggesting that you square off the corner of the house rather than have that exterior clipped corner. It adds little to the design, yet will be costly to build.

    I see you've already thought about a pass-through; I couldn't see that on the plans. I suggested switching the sink's position because I was thinking that'd also mean switching the dishwasher . . . and that'd mean it'd be convenient to stand in one spot and put the dishes into the pass-through cabinet.

    Yeah, the laundry room is kind of "stuck". You don't need all that space, yet you can't really do much about it.

    No, your pantry is not too big. I store many large kitchen items in my pantry (roaster, three crock pots, 3-gallon punchbowl, large platters, the list could go on). When we build and I have a larger pantry, more kitchen items are going into the pantry. Since I can vegetables during the summer and my husband enjoys brewing his own beer and making wine, we need the storage space. A pantry is practical: It keeps your countertops cleaned off, and it's much less expensive than building more-more-more countertops. It's also easier to find things on wide-open shelves than it is to find them in dark cabinets. My pantry's going to be more than double the size of yours, and I'm 100% sure it's a worthwhile choice.

    As for formal vs. informal in the dining room . . . this is a question of how you do things in your family. In my family and my social group, we tend to put out a buffet or pot luck on the kitchen bar, and after serving themselves people sit in the dining room (and living room, if we need more seats).

    You are absolutely right to research historic houses before you do a single thing. I've heard of people in the historic district being fined for using the wrong paint color . . . or even being required to change/remodel an item that doesn't fit in with the historic neighborhood. I guess that's why I'm building out in the middle of my own 40+ acres where my business is my business!

    I am absolutely no help on the windows.

  • lyfia
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    To me it looks like the closet above the entry is really messing up the elevation etc. In general I like the plans with the exception of that and also what seems like wasted space between sun room/kitchen/mudroom.

    Would it be possible to shrink the foot print of the laundry and the 2nd bath to move the closet? It seems like you have lots of space there that could be put to better use. I mean how much time do you really spend in either to need all the empty space and walking space in there? Not having that middle peak in the elevation would make the home seem a little more authentic. At least for what I'm used to seeing on the folk and queen Anne Victorians around here. I'm not including italiante as the bay shape isn't as large on those if existing at all around here.

    I don't have any ideas for the open unused area in front of the sunroom. Doesn't appear large enough for a breakfast table with the island seating and would be redundant. Doesn't have wall space to put toys or anything to use as a play area while y'all are cooking either. Have you looked at how you plan to place furniture in the family room and walk around it?

    I would rearrange in the powder room as the first view if somebody leaves the door open will be the toilet from the front door.

    The front porch roof looks quite funny with that flat section. I would expect to see no low sloping roofs on a Victorian.

    Good Luck on your build.

    This post was edited by lyfia on Sat, Dec 29, 12 at 23:29

  • virgilcarter
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    A well illustrated and written guide for architectural styles (and why they got that way) is "A Field Guide to American Houses", by Virginia and Lee McAlester, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1984.

    You are proposing what should be a wonderful approach to building a custom home, i.e., building a "new" old house in a recognized and respected historical district. For best fit, maximum resale value and peace with your new neighbors, however, you need more and better professional help than you are apparently getting currently.

    I suggest you get a copy of the book from you library or Amazon and do some reading and thinking. Decide whether or not your lumberyard draftsperson is capable of reading the book and using the information to make some of the needed improvements. If not, seek the help of an experienced architect who has successful projects in the historical district and a body of work with "new" old buildings. Contact the local chapter of The American Institute of Architects for a referral.

    Good luck!

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks again for more insights Mrs. Pete!

    As soon as we get our initial bids back from general contractors we will almost certainly revise our "needs" versus "wants" in order to keep costs under control.

    Thanks for the clarification regarding your sun room comment. The angled outside corner was originally in response to the 100-year-old American elm tree at the corner of the house (the local historic commission doesn't want any trees removed). However, after having an arborist from the county extension office check it out we discovered substantial rot and a chain saw took care of the rest. We will square the outside corner in the next version of plans.

    We'll keep the diswhasher and kitchen sink together and move these to the corner. With a pass-through to the dining room this would be really convenient at clean-up.

    The pantry will stay as is. Thanks for the positive vote.

    For the dining room I think we will add the wall with a pass-through, but not add a door. We have a swing door between the kitchen and dining room in our current house and never close this anyways. The wall will provide enough separation for us to create a formal space and will also block the view of the kitchen mess when seated in the dining room.

    So often I have been tempted to just buy 5 acres outside of town (land is cheap here) and build a simpler house. There is some subtle pressure from neighbors, the city, and the historic commission not to screw this up. Having said this, everyone has been helpful and supportive of the project. We love the neighborhood and want to make a lasting contribution to the ongoing revival of this area of town.

  • supergrrl7
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    We are also working on plans for an infill home in a historic neighborhood, so I am sympathetic to the challenges you are facing!

    The biggest problem I see is the roofline and big blank gap in the front elevation. No historic home would have those three echoing peaks. People seem to really like them in the past 10 years or so, but they scream "early 2000's housing development" to me. The lack of a window and the whole center section under the middle peak makes the house feel very cockeyed. I think the book "Welcoming Home" by Michaela Mahady had some good suggestions about designing an exterior that invites you in. I also think "Get Your House Right" would give you some tips about appropriate historic details.

    Overall, I think you floor plan looks very practical. I might tweak a few things myself. I love a big pantry. I also want a good sized mud room and I don't think yours would be big enough for us. If it were me, I would be worried that all the stuff we carried into the house would spill into the living room. 9x8 sounds like a good-sized room, but when you add in the counter and whatever it is on the left (lockers? v narrow closet?) It is basically just a 6 foot wide hallway. Our last house had a 6x8 mudroom (no closet or countertop) and it was a very unpleasant way to enter the house. When I think of 4 people entering at once, carrying groceries, backpacks, shrugging off coats or whatever, it might be tight, especially if you are in an area where snowy boots will be piled up on the floor for a good portion of the year.

    I hope you continue posting. I am really looking forward to seeing how your home progresses. We haven't even started with an architect yet and I know our home will be much better based on the advice I have read on this forum. Good luck!

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for the helpful comments lyfia.

    The front elevation needs work and the guest room closet is a big part of the problem (too many gables at the front). I agree we should eliminate the walk-in closet and instead create an interior reach-in closet. We can give up some space from the kids bathroom/laundry/landing to create the new closet. This would also help with our goal to reduce the square footage below 3,000 to keep costs down.

    The wasted space at the mud room/sun room junction has been on my mind for some time. We will change the kitchen island to a simple rectangle and drop the seating, but where can we fit a 4-seat kitchen table for informal dining? In earlier drawings I had this table at the mud room/sun room junction, but this impeded traffic flow. I might push-out the wall with the porch door and use some of the porch space to create a little more room for a kitchen table.

    Regarding family room furniture placement, we can fit a modest couch, loveseat and two chairs, along with a few tables, and still have room for a walkway that extends from the mud room and then branches into the kitchen and towards the stairs. Not having any traffic flow directly through the family room really helps with furniture placement.

    Good point regarding the powder room. We can fix the problem by switching the locations of the door and toilet. Believe it or not, one of the commercial plans we used as a template for this house had the powder room between the kitchen and dining room. I can just imagine how many comments this would have generated from the GW folks!

    Regarding the porch roof, which section do you find "too flat"? Are you referring to the shallow "wings" off the bay and over the front door or the pitch of the main porch roof?

  • palimpsest
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    How "Victorian" does this house have to be to be acceptable to the historic commission.

    The reason I ask is that in some areas there is a movement away from trying to create an ersatz historical house, to creating something that is clearly Not trying to imitate it's neighbors but is still sympathetic with the scale of the neighborhood and that looks "natural" in the streetscape.

    There will be so many things about this house, that, even with a properly proportioned Victorian fa�ade will make it clearly not so: building materials, window construction and myriad other little details that were part of the Victorian sensibility that cannot be duplicated unless you are building a complete facsimile.

    As for understanding historical buildings, even many architects do not. It depends on the type of program they graduate from: if it's not classically-based they may have very little knowledge of history. I have a friend who is a talented architect but he can't even really name the various historical styles that line my street with much accuracy. His training was of a clearly modernist bent.

    Anyway, would the historic commission in your area approve something that followed basic parameters of setback and height of roof and primary cornice and fenestration, but was clearly a modern house?

    Right now, I can't see that the window pattern, or fenestration, could be correct, compared to the neighboring houses--but depending on who is actually on the commission they may be more satisfied with something that does not have the correct proportions of a Victorian, but has some details shoehorned onto it that say "Victorian" rather than something that captures all the right proportions and massing but without the faux details.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your insights GreenDesigns.

    Yeah, a neo-eclectic McMansion would be the WORST possible outcome. We definitely need some help to simplify the facade and get the proportions more in-line with the Victorian style. The historic houses here range from the early 1880s (i.e., late Victorian) through the 1930s (Arts and Crafts). There are no elaborately decorated homes common to earlier Victorian architecture (e.g., Second Empire, Stick-Eastlake, Italianate). Although there are a few Queen Anne homes, including two across the street from our lot, most homes would be best described as folk Victorian. Many houses were built during the transition period between late Victorian and early Arts and Crafts, and thus tend to incorporate elements from both styles.

    You mention the layout needs work to avoid being "THAT" house, but do not provide any details. Would you mind highlighting your top 2 or 3 problem areas?

    Thanks again for the insights.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your additional comments virgilcarter.

    A few months ago I contacted the historic commission for a recommended list of local architects who could help with the project. Unfortunately, low interest rates equals very busy architects and general contractors. Understandably these folks are going for the "low-hanging fruit" right now and taking relatively straight-forward projects with the highest profit margin. We did hire one of the suggested architects as a consultant but he really didn't bring any insights to the project. I think it is time to go back to list and select another architect for a second opinion.

    Although I have recently read several books on architecture to help educate myself, after skimming the reviews for "A Field Guide to American Houses" I see this book is apparently the bible of American house styles. How did I miss this one! I am placing my Amazon order now!

  • mrspete
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ah, I would've been willing to catty-corner the sunroom to save a lovely, old tree. Too bad that's not possible.

    For the dish pass-through, I'd consider making it an "all-the-way-to-the-counter" cabinet to really make use of the space.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your thoughts supergrrl7. It is good to hear there are others pursuing the crazy dream of a "new" old house.

    I agree the middle gable at the front of the house needs to go (see my earlier responses above).

    Thanks for the book suggestions. I'll be adding "Get your house Right" to my Amazon order tonight.

    As for the mud room, in a previous drawing we had a larger room, 9' wide by 12' deep, but it seemed to stick-out too much at the back of the house. In the current 9' wide x 8' deep version there is a bench with upper cabinets next to the sink, and on the opposite wall is an open closet to hang clothes. Since we do not have a mud room in our current house it is tough to judge how much space we will need (kids ages 5 and 2, two adults, and lots of winter/outdoor gear). Do you think it would be sufficient to widen the room to 12' (keep depth at 8') and push over the sun room?

    I'll keep GW posted on our progress.

  • zone4newby
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Neat project! Have you considered having the master and guest room on the 2nd floor and putting the kids on the 3rd? I hate the idea of building a nice master that you plan to abandon for the guest room, and it seems like a waste of money too-- if you didn't need the guest to work as a master, you could have a much smaller guest bathroom and closet, so you're paying for a second master that you *may* want in 15 years.

    Good luck! Please keep posting!

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi palimpsest,

    You pose a good question; how "Victorian" does this house need to be?

    I expect that anyone walking by on the street will know it is a new house. However, I still want the house to fit-in and to contribute to the overall historic character of the neighborhood.

    The expectations of the local historic commission are likely less rigorous than east coast cities like Boston or Washington that contain many historic neighborhoods. Nonetheless, the following is expected for any historic infill construction (I am paraphrasing from the Request For Proposals put out by the city):

    1. Size, scale and massing of the home should be consistent with typical homes in the neighborhood. For this lot it was defined as two stories plus an attic.

    2. No modern home styles are allowed (e.g., ranch, split-level etc.).

    3. The house should be narrow and deep, which is common for the typical 50' wide by 140' deep city lots in the area (our lot is large at 80' x 140').

    4. Set-back from the sidewalk and property lines must be consistent with other homes on the block. There are also several restrictions on the ratio of building to green space on the lot.

    5. Detached garage must be located at the back of the property.

    6. A front porch of at least 50% of the width of the house.

    7. Siding must be wood or fiber cement, with a clapboard style consistent with nearby homes (i.e., no vinyl, stone or brick). Windows can be wood or clad exterior (i.e., no vinyl), with trim style and mass consistent with nearby homes. I believe almost any shingle style or materials are allowed [OK, maybe no terracotta tiles :)].

    8. The number, size, spacing, and fenestration of windows must be consistent with nearby homes. Obviously this gets a little more subjective deciding what looks right (it will be up to the historic commission to approve the final outside appearance).

    9. Although not defined in the RFP, I would suggest the historic commission does not want to see houses decorated with excessive faux trim.

    An earlier version of our house plans was approved when we applied to purchase the city lot. The final version of these plans will be reviewed again and must be approved before we can start construction.

  • palimpsest
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    In my city there are a number of specific houses that come to mind that share the cornice heights, window placement and overall distribution of floor levels and massing with their neighbors (and these are all attached houses). The neighborhoods are, variously, Georgian/Colonial; Federal; Greek Revival and Italianate. But the houses are clearly contemporary to the era that they were built (1920s - 1980s mostly)and they do not try to mimic the period details of their neighbors, but rather all proportion/massing and wall-to-opening ratios. One of the houses is a rare International Style with metal casement windows on a street of Italianate and Classical Revival houses. It was built when the original house was destroyed by fire. It fits nicely into the streetscape, however because all the earmarks excepting historical details are correct. Would that be a possibility with your commission?

    From a details standpoint one of the things that is glaring about your front elevation is the "porkchop" eave returns. This is a modern money-saving detail to my knowledge, and that, along with the wide trim boards around the shingled areas make the roof look extremely heavy.

  • renovator8
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The house design you show is clearly intended to be of the Queen Anne Style.

    Arts & Crafts was not really an architectural style in the US but many designers were greatly influenced by the Arts & Crafts movement in England.

    If there was a specific stye that created a transition from the Victorian to later styles I would say it was the Shingle Style.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your suggestion zone4newby.

    We like the idea of the attic master for a couple of reasons. First, we want the privacy and separation from the kids once they are old enough to consistently sleep through the night on their own (another 2-3 years most likely). Second, the attic provides a large space with a high ceiling that can be varied for architectural interest. Third, with no rooms above us the space will be very quiet. Finally, from the bedroom porch we have a view of downtown and the river basin (this can't be seen from the 2nd floor). So long as we both remain able-bodied (we are in our late 30s), I expect we'll stay in the attic master until retirement. I am not a big fan of the "forever house" concept; instead, we plan to downsize once we retire in another 25 years or so.

    I agree that the guest suite is grander than needed. In response to other posted comments, we plan to eliminate the walk-in closet for the guest suite and instead create a reach-in closest by stealing space from the 2nd floor landing and laundry room. This will help to improve the front facade (eliminates the middle gable), and will also help us to more efficiently use the 2nd floor space while reducing the overall square footage of the house. Our main desire for the guest suite was a private bathroom for relatives who visit and often stay for 1-2 weeks at a time (this occurs multiple times each year). However, we might follow your suggestion and make the guest bathroom a little smaller.

    Thanks again for your post.

  • kirkhall
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    On the layout (I can't say anything about the exterior style, but you've got good help above already)...

    I also don't like the dog-leg connected dining space of the kitchen. But, I really like Hollysprings' "redo" of that space--or similar.

    I was also surprised to see the master on the 3rd floor. (That is all I will say about that for now. I need to think on it a bit more and hear about your thoughts on use of that space.)

  • chibimimi
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Most Victorians are built on pretty high foundations. On your rendering it looks like your home will sit rather close to the ground. That may just be the way it's drawn, but do make sure your foundation height matches those on the rest of the street.

  • supergrrl7
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Another thought crossed my mind this morning. Have you looked at any historic home plans?

    I have scoured www.antiquehome.org and found several houses that were actually built in my neighborhood. I saw this one when we were house shopping and it still had the same terrible kitchen layout: http://www.antiquehome.org/House-Plans/1926-Standard/Beaumont.htm If we end up using any details we found in the old plan exteriors, I will have a strong argument to make to the architectural review board.

    For example, the general front layout of this house is pretty similar to yours: http://www.antiquehome.org/House-Plans/1903-Radford/03r-514.htm It definitely seems like these plans skew toward bungalows, but there might be houses from your neighborhood in there that can help you figure out what would fit in well.

    I have also found a lot of good ideas looking at the work of architects who do work on Traditional Neighborhood Design. This one had some interesting exteriors: http://historicaldesigns.com

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your comments Renovator8.

    Yes we were aiming for a modest Queen Anne. Across the street from our lot there are two 1880s Queen Anne homes of about 3,500 sq. ft. above ground. The remainder of the block has folk Victorian or early American foursquare homes. However, even the largest of these homes tend to be fairly modest in terms of decorative features on the facade.

    With regard to Arts & Crafts houses, I suppose in the US this would more accurately be called Craftsman, which as you stated was influenced by the UK Arts & Crafts movement.

    Yeah you are correct that the Shingle style followed the elaborate earlier Victorian homes and preceded the Craftsman era, and thus best represents the transition between these two periods. There are no Shingle homes near our lot, but a few do exist in the historic district. It has been fun learning about the history of house architecture these past few months, but I am far from an expert!

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for your comment about the foundation Chibimimi. Yes the elevation drawings don't really make it clear that we plan to have about 24" of exposed, above-ground foundation. This height is similar to the existing homes on the block. Our plan is to cover the exposed concrete foundation with brick. Almost all of homes in the historic district built before 1900 have brick foundations. In some cases the above-ground brick is still visible, in other cases this has been covered over in recent decades with some sort of stucco-cement finish.

  • jimandanne_mi
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "G. Attic: Once the kids are older, the attic will become our master suite."

    I haven't read the 2nd half of the posts, so maybe this was mentioned. Once the kids are older, you will probably want to stay on the same floor so that you know what time they come home, and possibly to be sure they don't try to sneak out. Once they are gone, you might not look forward to 2 sets of stairs as you get older.

    My brother had a 3rd floor that was made into a glassed-in office so he could watch the kids, and a kids' playroom. The playroom worked for maybe 2-3 years max while the kids were very young. Then everyone pretty much didn't go up there anymore. They used one of the 2nd floor rooms as an activity space. The office worked, because he did a lot of work from home at all hours of the day and night due to international connections, but that meant that his wife and kids didn't see him much.

    You might want to do a separate post asking who has lived with a finished 3rd floor, what it was planned for, and if it ended up being used well, or not.

    Anne

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi palimpsest,

    It sounds like you live in a beautiful and very interesting neighborhood. You raise a very valid point as to how much we need to mimic the period details. I would suggest the historic commission prioritizes massing, set-back, building materials, window placement and distribution of floor levels over exterior period details. For good reason the commission discourages attempting to create reproduction-quality "new" old homes (too expensive; hard to get it right) and/or the use of excessive decoration on the facade (looks very tacky). I think if we try too hard to make this look like a Victorian house we are more likely to end up with a neo-eclectic McMansion, as another post pointed out.

    At first I wasn't sure what you meant by "porkchop" eave returns. A quick Google search led me to the book "Get Your House Right: Architectural Elements to Use and Avoid". The book provides a 5-page summary of how to design eaves and avoid the "porkchop" look you describe. Excellent advice! Time to e-mail Amazon again and expand my order :)

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for adding your thoughts kirkhall.

    Yes I am getting some very good help on the exterior style. Thank you GW!

    The angled kitchen island is done. We will return to our earlier idea of a modest rectangular island (2'6" x 7') with no seating, and a separate 4-seat kitchen table located somewhere at the junction of the mud room/sun room/porch door. I think we can push out the porch door wall about 3' (i.e., in-line with the kitchen wall) to create enough room for a table without impeding traffic. I don't think we'll follow the drawing by Hollyspings as there is too much wasted space in the middle of the kitchen, a ~12' walk from sink to stove, and the fridge opens into the traffic flow. Nonetheless, the drawing is greatly appreciated and stimulated a 30-minute discussion between my wife and I on how to improve the kitchen!

    OK...here is the reasoning for the 3rd floor master. Let me know what you think.

    1. Once the youngest child is 5-6 years of age, we would like to have more privacy. I remember the teenage years!

    2. We are required to build a two story plus attic, so the space is there. This is a large space that has the potential to create some architecturally interesting ceiling patterns.

    3. With no rooms above us this will be a quiet space. Again, I remember the teenage years!

    4. From the 3rd floor there is a nice view of the river basin that cannot be seen from the second floor.

    5. With regard to potential resale value (which isn't a high priority for us), there are no homes in the historic district with a 1st floor master. Most master bedrooms are on the 2nd floor, with some attic masters in larger homes.

    Potential pitfalls of an attic master...

    1. Two flights of stairs can be a PITA. Although I know many GW folks prefer a 1st floor master, this is not an option for a house that must be long, narrow and tall. We just can't fit it in. The laundry room is on the 2nd floor, so not too far to go. A few years ago we also starting using a weekly cleaning service (expensive but it has given us our Saturdays back), so we are not worried about lugging cleaning supplies up the steps. We are in our late 30s now and have very active lifestyles (e.g., this winter I built a large ice-rink in our backyard and use it daily). Once we retire and do not want to climb the stairs we'll downsize (I do not want a 3,200 sq. ft. house when I'm 70 as my lifestyle will be very different than now).

    2. I know it can be difficult to heat and cool the attic in old houses where the attic was never designed to be a living space. This is an issue I have raised with the general contractors with regard to cost and feasibility. They claim this is not a problem.

    Are there other pitfalls you can think of? How else might you choose to use the space? I would really appreciate your thoughts.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Great minds think alike supergrrl7!

    Yes I have reviewed plans on both of the sites you listed. I didn't spend much time at the www.antiquehome.org site as many of the homes are smaller bungalows as you mentioned. After taking another look this morning I did find a few examples of Queen Anne houses that might help us with the exterior facade. I did review many of the plans from http://historicaldesigns.com and got lots of ideas from here.

    Below I list some of the designs that we used for "inspiration". None of the designs had the layout or square footage we wanted, but they provided a starting point from which we could customize our layout.

    http://www.homeplans.com/plan-detail/HOMEPW15800/modern-romance
    The facade of this house is most similar to our current drawings.

    http://www.homeplans.com/plan-detail/HOMEPW15799/victorian-for-smaller-lot

    http://historicaldesigns.com/index.php?action=listingview&listingID=220

    http://historicaldesigns.com/index.php?action=listingview&listingID=125

    http://historicaldesigns.com/index.php?action=listingview&listingID=204

    http://www.homeplans.com/plan-detail/HOMEPW14990/three-bedroom-queen-anne

    I also spent a lot of time looking at web sites for companies that specialize in historic infill house design. Here are just two examples:

    http://tightlinesdesigns.com/content/historic-infill

    http://www.taylormadeplans.com/

    It was also very helpful to review criteria for historic infill design in other cities. See here for examples:

    http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/infill-house-plan-program/

    http://archive.knoxmpc.org/plans/dguides/infill_guide.pdf

    http://www.plainfield-il.org/departments/documents/infilldesignFINAL.pdf

    Despite a fair amount of background research, we still haven't achieved the Victorian look we want. The feedback we are getting on this blog is definitely helping.

  • palimpsest
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here is a bad picture of the International Style house that replaced an earlier destroyed Italianate house. Arguably, it fits into the streetscape because the proportions follow along with the older houses. The probably newer house to its left, while more "historic" looking in detail, is less in keeping with the block because of its scale, and actual architectural period. It's a Georgian/Adam façade that would never have appeared on this block because the style is 70 years Older than the other houses, which goes backwards.

    The International Style was built when there was no historic commission (1920s), and there have been times since that the commission would not have let this been built, but currently, I think they would allow a 2013 house be built on an 1850 block if it was sympathetic. It's not likely they would approve the historically accurate but wrong period house to its left for this block.

  • virgilcarter
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Concerning use of attics, here's some thoughts fron one who has a four-level Revolutionary War Colonial house (basement, two levels above grade and an occupied attic):

    --There's lots of stair climbing in such houses;
    --Moving/relocating large, heavy objects between floors takes planning in order to avoid problems with both people and furnishings/equipment (how will the super-king bed frame, matress and innersprings get to the attic?);
    --There's major "seperation" of interior spaces, i.e., the opposite of "open space" plans, which presents both pros and cons, depending on one's family and lifestyle;
    --Attic spaces are often very interesting, due to their varying wall, ceiling geometries and heights, as compared to the "rectangular" spaces of rooms elsewhere;
    --Windows and natural light may be limited due to the limited vertical wall areas available for windows. Skylights and roof windows are a helpful option, depending on climate and insulation requirements;
    --Occupied attics must be insulated, heated and cooled, meaning the insulation envelope must encompass the roof plane. In cold climates, this usually also means substantial exterior rigid insulation, as well as rafter cavity insulation.
    --Careful planning, zoning and distribution is required for HVAC systems, including fresh air makeup, particularly for kitchens with exhaust hoods greater than about 400 CFM.

    None of these are deal-breakers, given proper prior planning and design. Using an attic as an afterthought, however, is more challenging and expensive.

    My painting studio is in our occupied attic and I enjoy it there. It's isolated and quiet; ideal for painting. Whether or not one would want to "live" there and travel frequently between the first floor (living, kitchen and garage) and an attic MBR is really a highly individual choice.

    I, for one, would not want to be on the third level, while my at-home children were small or teen-aged, for obvious reasons. When my children were gone, I certainly wouldn't want to sleep on the third level and live on the first level, by-passing the second level on a regular basis. Of course, everyone is different.

    Finally, regular and repeated stair travel between first and third levels daily suggests that one may need to have healthy knees, hips, backs, no breathing or coronary constraints and be in good physical shape. But then, aren't we all?

    Good luck with your project.

  • palimpsest
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    One of the things that leads to some muscle loss in the lower limbs is not regularly walking up and down stairs.

    Particularly since you are not planning to stay in this house forever, you might be fine. I would just make sure the guest suite can serve as a suitable master because of resale.

    We live in a third floor walk-up (although there is a very small elevator) and occupy the third and fourth floors of a large house. (52 steps up from the street, 68 to the top). I am 50 and run up the stairs, basically, even though I will need a knee replacement and possibly hip, they project. If I wasn't doing this every day I am sure I couldn't do it.

    We have sold this apartment and the chief complaint was that it was a third floor walkup and this came across the board from young and old.

    But the buyer is 73. So who knows?

  • zone4newby
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don't think there's anything wrong with having the master suite on the third floor, assuming you can handle the steps. I think that putting a second master suite in a house this size is unnecessary, and you could probably spend your money in other ways that would have a larger impact on resale (i.e. fancier details on the main level).

    Not everyone is going to want to buy a house with a 3rd floor master, but plenty of people will be fine with it, especially if they want to be in your neighborhood.

    My dirty lens: the appeal of the main floor master is completely lost on me. I understand why someone who foresees being unable to climb stairs in the near future would insist on it, but otherwise, I don't get it.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi palimpsest,

    Thanks for the photo of your street. It really helps to illustrate the relative importance of scale and proportions versus "historic" finishing details.

    Below I have attached a couple of photos of Victorian homes within a block of our lot. All of these houses date to the 1880s and are probably best described as Queen Anne. Again, we are not trying to replicate any of these houses, we just want to "fit-in".

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Second example...

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Third example...

  • virgilcarter
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Historic, thanks for posting these examples. It's always enjoyable to see historic houses, and these are lovely.

    Each of these is proportioned to be narrow in front and deep to the rear, which is typical of city lots.

    Have you looked and compared the street front proportions and scale of these houses with your drafted elevations? If you do you will quickly see that these houses have proportions and fenestration that is largest on the lower level, somewhat smaller on the second level and smallest on the attic (third) level. This is very typical of classic houses. Your elevations do not have the same progression and scale--something that your lumberyard drafter probably doesn't have a clue about.

    Also look carefully at the roof line. There are simple and single gables, and none of the mulitple gable, multiple materials elevations.

    While Victorians are often highly detailed, and frequently colorful, there is a unity and harmony that characterizes the best of them--as evidenced in your photos.

    These photos offer good references for your build. If you can get your plans and elevations to this level of refinement you will be very successful and enjoy your new house for many years. Good luck on your project!

  • palimpsest
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The striking thing to me (again)is the lightness of the trim around the roof and the larger amount of window area in the historical houses vs. your house.

    Also notice that on the historical houses, the windows are linked to each other by at least one piece of trim in all of the houses (at least at the tops), and are linked and outlined very much in the grey blue house, which is quite effective.

  • Historic_Infill
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Palimpsest,

    You have a great eye for architectural details. Every day I look out my windows at the yellow and blue Queen Anne homes, yet I never noticed that the trim pieces link windows together! In the next round of elevation revisions I will also look to lighten the trim along the roof and balance window sizes between floors (largest on the main, a little smaller on the second, smallest in the attic...as suggested by virgilcarter). Thanks again for the great advice.

  • supergrrl7
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi H_I,
    I ran across another site of antique home plans and they have a few pretty Queen Anne houses. I thought you might want to check it out. I am not sure if it is related to the Antique Home website or what.

    http://antiquehomestyle.com/styles/queen-anne.htm

  • xhtmlpros
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Great post like this

    web designing service

    Here is a link that might be useful: Ryan Reynold

  • Mike Atencio
    5 years ago

    Did you ever build the home? What plans did you purchase and what was the company name and website. I like this house too. Thanks