Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 12:58am | #1

   *
   in the back issues of JLC, Gordon Tulley used to ahve a monthly feature on architecture..

   some of his do- overs had to do with exactly your case...check it out

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 03:44am | #2

   *Chuck, since I live and remodel in the Williamsburg, VA area, I'm sensitive to good and bad "colonial" designs. I am NOT an architect. Personally, I think you're not gonna achieve the look you really desire unless you deal with the major item you've already pointed out: The roof pitch. Dormers would only call attention to this problem (and wouldn't scale well into a 4:12, anyway). Adding a front gable will only do the same.Tell us more... I'm presuming this is a two-story home. Brick or wood siding? Are the windows on the front elevation well-proportioned double-hungs and are the second story windows directly over the first level windows and front door? What is the present entry treatment (Pilasters/pediment/sidelites)? Is there a front porch, or just steps?A local architect revised a low roof pitch by simply building a new roof system above the existing. He tore off the old roof sheathing for the first few feet off the eaves to expose the top plates, then ridged and raftered the new higher pitch roof with a minimum of exposure to the occupied home and contents. Slick, quick and cost-effective. If you're dealing with a two-story home, the roof footprint is gonna be pretty small. Figure on 8:12 pitch, scale things out and see how that might look. Tack some 1x6 fake rake boards at this pitch on the actual house and see if it helps to visulize the new design.Shutters often are not properly sized for the windows, and, heaven forbid, should not be used on picture windows (if this house has a picture window on the front, you're gonna have to make some major changes anyway). BTW, most shutters are installed "backwards"... vinyl shutters are actually made this way. Some nice shutter dogs and hinges add to the colonial apperance, even if they're not functional.Let us know more about your project, and post a picture or two of the home. Others here at Breaktime may or may not agree with my thoughts, but there's a good chance you'll get some good advice from the folks who hang out here.Standing by, Steve

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 03:54am | #3

   *George, I concur on all but the "eyebrow" dormers... I took a client for a walk down Duke of Glouchester Street here in Williamsburg to select dormer details, and didn't see a single eyebrow. Not that we have a lock on colonial architecture, but the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is heavily into authenticityAnother point to go with your thoughts regarding the door and window trim. I didn't mention color in my earlier post (which appears below this)... The colonial Williamsburg Foundation licenses its color pallette to Martin-Senour Paints. M-S is owned by Sherwin-Williams, so the CW colors are available through S-W stores (at least around here). Color selection, along with the trim changes you have suggested, will go a long way toward achieving the desired appearance.Regards, Steve

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 04:28am | #4

   *... And to add to Steve's comments on color, for $6.00 you can purchase SPNEA's color chart, "Historic Colors of America", one of the best period reference guides to historic colors that I've ever seen.George - Give it up on eyebrows in the 18th century - you're 100 years early.Jeff

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 05:15am | #5

   *Jeff, not having the AIA credentials required to post on this topic, combined with my mistaken notion that options to a "spec built" and not a Historic District property was the subject matter, I have deleted my offensive posts. The subtle nuances of attic dormers, and the inclusion of the term "eyebrow" which Architectural Graphic Standards would indicate as a shingle or thatch style offended you and corrupted this post. My appologies for treading on such hallowed ground. Perhaps when I complete my PhD in Preservation History will I fear tread these halls again.Until such time, I'll stick to items of a more pedantic nature... being a Restorationist, and not a Preservationist.

2. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 02:33pm | #6

   *Oh come on George, lighten up - No offense implied, just an interest in the truth. If I commented that George Washington used TJI's at Mount Vernon, what would you say?Jeff

3. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 03:19pm | #7

   *Still working it Jeff? "Truth" implies the opposite... Lie. Accuracy in terminology is what you're after? Or is it more a "stick to what you're good at" mentality? Sorry Jeff... I don't hang Vinyl for a living either.The Truth is there are few unadulterated colonial era residences in private hands in these parts.See the excellent book: Big House, Little House, Back House, Barn.The Truth is, the term "eyebrow" indicated to You and Steve, an arched top dormer, woven into the roofing. Truth is, around here, it's been mis-used as a term for a small 4 to 6 lite attic dormer window. Lastly, I would have expected that more from Thomas Jefferson, but Washington must have done something notable to get on the Dollar bill.So, if it's TJIs... I just hope MacMillan is paying royalties.

4. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 06:04pm | #8

   *Avoiding confusion in terminology is one of the things that these discussions are for, in my opinion. No 'stick to what you're good at' intended at all. Sorry if you felt jumped on - I didn't mean it that way.Just the facts, m'am.Joe Friday

5. 
   Guest_ | Oct 03, 2000 07:08pm | #9

   *I've got just the thing for it Chuck!! A few years ago there was a back cover of FHB featuring a row of flats somewhere in England I think. There was a huge fiberglass shark (?marlin?) stuck in the roof of one. That really stood out there, might work for your situation too. No wondering "Which one's mine?" after an evening out! Joe H

2. 
   Chuck_Thompson | Oct 04, 2000 03:01am | #10

   *
   Wow, looks like I hit a nerve! I have the utmost appreciation for historical accuracy in historic houses. This unfortunately is not such a house. Sounds like the popular thinking is that if you want to make the roof look not so low, bite the bullet and make it taller. Otherwise draw attention away from it by adding detail below. Additional suggestions are greatly appreciated.

3. 
   Guest_ | Oct 04, 2000 06:43am | #11

   *
   Chuck,

   Can you adapt anything from this attachment?

4. 
   Anthony_Colman | Oct 04, 2000 10:39am | #12

   *
   You know, looking through my various books on American architectural history, I see a lot of early American houses with low pitched roofs.

   I believe the easiest and most straightforward way to deal with your roof would be to add a properly classical pediment across the front (similar to the one on Mount Vernon). Note that I state PEDIMENT, and not front gable.

   During the Federal period, a very popular way to disguise a low-pitch roof was to surmount the house with a balustrade running around the house, just over the entablature (like on Monticello).

   Am I to assume that the house already has its siding on? Would it be possible to add substantially scaled corner pilasters and an entablature?

5. 
   Guest_ | Oct 04, 2000 02:43pm | #13

   *
   I'll see your pediment and raise you one portico.

   FHB No. 105, pg. 72-75

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 04, 2000 02:44pm | #14

   *And the closeup.

6. 
   Anthony_Colman | Oct 05, 2000 02:21am | #15

   *
   Can you adapt this idea?

7. 
   Guest_ | Oct 05, 2000 09:55pm | #16

   *
   The poor guy said it was a spec house and wanted to add some interest. Man, you guys tend to go off on bads ones here,

   Anthony, very nice, and actually doable. Maybe extend it out to the front to include an entry.

   Ralphs last idea was actually my first, add a decent front entry, but the trim level should be in keeping with the existing design. Consider also a side addition, etc. Maybe build-up your window headers a bit, hmm?

   If you want to rip to the frame and go historical, go for it, but I think the best advice is to blend a little interest and live with what you have. You can't make a Yugo into a Cadillac. Balance is everything.

   Money best spent may be for landscaping in this case.

   I haven't really thought this through, but there must be some simple ideas to make Chuck happy. Chuck, I ditto posting a photo of you facade, you know, a picture...

8. 
   Chuck_Thompson | Oct 07, 2000 02:54pm | #17

   *
   I don't have a digital camera, but the house is virtually identical to the one in the picture that Ralph Wicklund posted in comment #18, but without the portico, and without of course the higher pitch roof. Anybody think a standing seam roof improves anything, or does it just draw attention to the low pitch?

9. 
   Chuck_Thompson | Oct 08, 2000 02:58am | #18

   *
   I'm working on a typical, spec built center hall colonial. The house is
   OK, but lacks interest due to it's "stock" white siding and black shutters
   but mostly because of it's low pitch 4 in 12 roof. I thought about
   dormers or a gable, but the pitch is so low it seems like it would look
   like an after thought. Anybody got any ideas to add interest without tearing it off and starting over?

10. 
    Guest_ | Oct 08, 2000 02:58am | #19

    *
    Chuck, I love standing seam roofs, but for this application I think the home location would be a factor, since it would end up with a "colonial farmhouse" look... great in the countryside, but not so appropriate in a subdivision of similar residences.

    I don't think any of us suggested dentil molding applied to the soffits: A nice colonial touch, an example of which actually appears in the hilarious photo in post #15.

    Good luck, Steve