Before The Architect, Residential Design Consulting

US PERIODS GEM

BEFORE THE ARCHITECT – DESIGN CONSULTANTS

AN AMERICAN PERIODS GEM, ADDING A GARAGE

Ok. Ok. Sure, this is tooting-your-own-horn. So be it said. So be it done. Five months, nigh unto 400 hours, 16 sheets, big house. First Architectural Board review - just 3 suggestions. He asked, "Ever before?" Answer, "Not that I know of." Second Architectural Board review - nothing to say. He asked, "Ever before?" Answer, "Not that I know of." Building permit application process - 1 week, no comment. He asked, "Ever before?" Answer, "Not that I know of. Not that fast. Not that little." AG loves to tell this story. Before The Architect

(If this is your first visit to Before The Architect, please consider spending a few moments looking over the Site Map, in order to get a feel for the architecture of the site itself.)

PREAMBLE: Before The Architect was asked to design a detached garage addition in-keeping with a very special house, as you will soon understand. This inclusion is for the beauty of the original property, its appreciation, and the extent to which Before The Architect goes to get it right. Really, in this context, the garage becomes anticlimactic and, for the stated purposes, irrelevant. AG and The Missus.

Here's the house:

. . . . . . . . .

NOTE: CLIENT, NORTH CENTRAL US

FROM: BEFORE THE ARCHITECT, CUMMING, GA

RE: TO-BE-BUILT GARAGE DESIGN

DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2006

. . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION

The house at [redacted] was reportedly built in the original in 1919.

That time in America was the heyday of two architectural styles clearly in evidence –

	Craftsman, Eclectic, 1905-1930 and
	American Tudor, Eclectic, 1890-1940 a/k/a Tudor Revival, American Tudor Revival, and Stockbroker’s Tudor.

In consideration herein under of designing a Garage to be built at Back Of House revolved a quarter-turn clockwise and set with its back in-line with the Right Of House,

	Representations of both Craftsman and Tudor Revival should be reflected
	Coincidentally, aspects of each style not present in the main house should not be reflected

Comments:

“When you don’t know where you’re going, any road will do.” anon. In our resonating an architectural style or, as in this enterprise, styles, we do know where we’re going and any road will, indeed, not do.
This work involves designing a whole building satisfactorily in the spirit of if not exactly the letter of an expertly designed and constructed older structure. While this project comes to Before The Architect as a dormer-centric design matter, it can’t just be about the dormer. Before The Architect recognizes the need to extend analysis and design beyond the dormer and its directly attendant parts, and will do so on its own time when truly off the reservation in fairness to the original commission.

DESIGN CHOICE POINTS

In lieu of an exhaustive treatment, herein after is a broadly selective (but not entirely comprehensive) summary of the stylistic vocabulary of each both applied (Pro) and not applied (Con).

Craftsman

Pro:

	Exposed rafter ends, albethey apparently decorative in this house
	Overhanging gable-end
	Overhanging eave
	Triangulated gable-end overhang brackets, or knee braces, of simple format (as opposed to the elaborated brackets of certain Victorian styles)
	Lower-pitched roof – at about maximum slope in this example
	Window glazes in multi-pane upper sash over clear
	Dominant front-facing dormer
	Mixed, exterior, finish clad materials: stucco and brick masonry, wood
	Gable-end decorative timber in-fill, outset
	Axial drop in ridge line with additions
	Front Of House symmetry in the core area is apparent

Con:

	No piers
	No columns
	No flared foundation
	No major masonry chimney, especially though not necessarily on the exterior
	No big, covered, side-to-side or wrap-around porch
	Fenestration is regular in size, shape, and horizontal aspect
	No exposed beam at gable-ends

• • •

American Tudor, Eclectic 1890-1940 a/k/a Tudor Revival, American Tudor Revival, Stockbroker’s Tudor

Pro:

	Cross-gabled, albeit weakly with a roof dormer
	Half-timber
	Multiple, exterior, finish clads
	End porch
	Overhanging gable-ends
	Major front-facing roof dormer gable-end with resonant stoop roofline, though no dominant front-facing gable-end
	Window mullions
	Prominent vergeboards
	Axial drop in ridge line from primary to secondary roof systems with additions (though less common than in Craftsman)

Con:

	Windows neither narrow, nor tall, nor grouped – except for one set on L2 at Back Of House
	Roof not steeply pitched
	No massive chimney, usually with pots
	No varied eave heights
	No dominant front-facing gable-end
	Front Of House asymmetry is absent

Comment: The hood moulding, or hood mould, or (if of masonry) dripstone over the main entry is Medieval Gothic in Traditional design and common to both Tudor Revival (as it was to English Tudor and thereafter, though its precedents are Classical) and Craftsman. This presentation is decidedly Craftsman.

Garage designing should stick with the Pros and eschew the Cons, unless whimsy overtakes us

This association of American styles was not accidental.

The original designer was well-versed in his craft as were the tradesmen all the way down to apprentice level

The effect of this association of archetypal Traditional architectural styles is eminently

	Salutary
	Masterly

NOW YOU SEE IT . . . .

The house was not built exactly as the original designer drew it

Let’s identify a couple of key features that

	Not only are not the same as-built as as-designed
	But also are relevant to the garage design

FRONT-FACING GABLES

At Front Of House,

Originally,

	The L2 dormer was both smaller and of a Tudor style at its tails
	Whereas, the stoop roof at Front Of House was of a Craftsman style at its tails

Further,

	While the roof dormer originally had a roof deck slope of 12/12, properly at the maximum permissible 20% variance to primary slope (the primary having been drawn at 15/12)
	The stoop’s roof slope was decidedly relaxed as it should have been, that is, in this instance, 7.5/12, or half the slope (Traditionally, the variance of a porch roof slope to the primary roof slope is 1/3-1/2 of the primary’s measure, which primary slope herewith was, as drawn, 15/12).

The original arrangement was shuffled considerably

	The two roof styles were swapped, built with a Craftsman upper and Tudor lower
	The lower slope was steepened to 9/12 approximately one assumes (given a 12/12 primary pitch, a 9.5/12, or 20% maximum of 12, would have been correct and both designer and builders knew it), roughly that of the as-built primary slope, and, in any case, approaching the slope of the dormer’s roof above
	The dormer was widened substantially to align in some manner (not easily discernible from the angled pic of Front Of House) with the stoop’s roof (so-called “regulating lines” were a major part of Classical and Traditional architecture and well-known and well-practiced by both designers and builders)
	The roof dormer now appears nearly the dimension of a Victorian Gothic wall dormer – nearly but not quite overdone, essentially imposing, to be reckoned with
	Not to be left out to dry, the gable-end, in-fill motifs of the original design were left in situ both on the upper and lower features, associating both styles cheek-by-jowl. (Undoubtedly, the house builders knew exactly what styles were married-up herewith, and saw it rightfully fitting to bring them together as had the original designer overall.)
	Furthermore, while in the original the roof dormers head timber is responsibly a step up in width relative to the other timbers in the dormer, it appears in the existing that those timbers are all of the same width (and at variance to the head timber treatment on the roof dormer at the Back Of House
	The garage design should mimic the existing arrangement of gable-ends both respectively and respectfully, but never slavishly.

FENESTRATION

Front Of House fenestration is of a Craftsman cottage-style window

	the upper sash of which is in this instance either 3/3/3 (often stated as 3 over 3 over 3) for the narrow dormer elements or 4 /4/4 elsewhere (a host of alternatives abounds into Victorian) and
	the lower sash is always clear

In the original drawings, the upper sashes were either 3 over 3 or 4 over 4

This layout is key

	Traditional dormers are fundamentally designed around their window panes from the inside out and
	In proportion, balance, and alignment from the outside in
	Then to the extent that the two approaches do not fit will, let the games begin

The essence of the fenestration format for these and nearly all other Traditional styles is that

	The individual panes be as close to square as possible and
	To the extent of tolerance, height may be increased only marginally over width and
	Not the other way around, that is, not individually glazed wider than tall. (Admittedly, structure by way of headers and sills can squeeze glaze heights outside of protocol, and looks to have here and there in existing.)

This design aspect will come with us, too, to the Garage

Gauging from both main dormers at Front Of House and Back Of House format appears not only different but also, possibly, made up on-site wherein all the features are at variance, among differences being

	Windows by number
	Timbering size
	Timbering and stucco patters
	Window siting
	Window size
	Window sash size, noting apparently evenly sized sashes at Back Of House while cottage-styled on Front Of House

Of commonality

	3-tiered glazing of the upper sash
	Clear lower sash
	Tudor face and Craftsman roof
	Face atop the roof pitch fold
	Same roof slope (apparently), Craftsman-like, definitely not Tudor

Taken together, designers have layout latitude within which to work, and need not iconize design philosophies based on several motives –

	Mixing of identifiable architectural styles (for Before The Architect, within permission of existing)
	Consistency of presentation in certain matters including, among others, fenestration
	As-built variance – notably artful, attentive, and even playful – from the more learned drawings of the original plan
	Siting away from Front Of House
	Siting behind the house, offering us another stylistic palette to sample
	Detachment from the house
	Different visual acquisition given Garage story-and-a-half rather than two-story structure

So Whassup With the Garage Design Already Done

There’s quite a lot that’s right with the design

Rectilinearity is always appreciated in out-buildings, that is, looking like that which it is makes good design sense

There’s sufficient L1 ceiling height at a maximum 9’-6” for storing almost anything, but not likely for giving up height to L2 because of the necessary let on the vertical to run up the overhead doors

The story-and-a-half structure by length, width, and height will not cause a struggle for visual attention with the main house

The quarter-turn siting of Garage to house reduces substantially problems of

	Comparability
	Focality

The 2 linear foot setback on the left Front of Garage is pleasantly distinctive, suggestive of an addition.

The flared primary rooflines are consistent (though as for correctness, this designer cannot say – there appears an overinflection relative to house flares, though the fold site seems about right)

12/12 primary roof slope appears to be within correct tolerance

Comment: Before The Architect is reliably advised that the length and width and height dimensions of Garage as already drawn are inviolate.

There are only a couple of things not so right with the design

Dormer layout

Disproportioned in both

ü Site and the

ü Dominant roof dormer at Front Of House

Ø Too tall

Ø Too wide

Ø Too steep, possibly

§ The flared rooflines are inconsistent with both front-facing gable-ends and the back-facing gable-end, too, all of which existing are not flared

§ The eave overhangs seems overstated

Roof layout

The dormer presents asymmetrically to the roof through which it protrudes

ü As drawn, there is a single roof plane on which the dormer is sited and that siting is right-of-center, roof width centerline to gable-end roof dormer centerline

ü A visual conflict arises because the dormer centerline is, indeed, over the garage vehicle doors on-center

The winner of this conflict has to be in almost all instances, including this one, that good design resolution is centerline-to-centerline for a given roof plane

ü This is the resolution of the front-facing dormer on its roof plane

ü More interesting, this is the siting resolution of the back-facing dormer, which siting disregards the split, axial ridgeline either side of the primary ridge and correctly engages the entire backside roof plane width in its centering

However, as you’re about to witness, there are at least two ways to resolve this matter and one is so much more effective designwise

FIRST THINGS SECOND – GARAGE ROOF LAYOUT

Here’s a really bad pun, maybe the worst of AG’s in so many, many years, to sort of make a point: the garage design spirit may well have been willing but the flashing was weak. You were warned

The resolution to the off-center garage roof dormer is to put it on-center

But not by moving the roof dormer

Rather by defining the roof on which it is sited such that that roof plane centers at the eave and ridge on the dormer’s center

	Acquire the 2 linear foot inset’s inflection from the garage vehicle door wall segment effectively as a wall line front-to-back
	Copy the Right Of Garage overhang on the new Left Of Garage interim effective wall line (as though to indicate that the wall segment of the inset introduces an addition to the Garage subsequent to the enclosed vehicle bays) and
	Lower the ridge above the “added” segment, still holding to the primary slope – as was done both sides of the primary, or core structure of the house
	This addition of another roof plane at Front Of Garage leaves the Back Of Garage roof plane whole (as with the house wings at their backsides)

Now the garage roof dormer is

	Correctly centered on its plane and still
	Rests symmetrically atop the vehicle doors…no more conflict
	Resonates comfortably with existing house roof design (and, thereby, structural presentation overall)

AG leaves the fold and the slope of the flare as presented,

Stating that the flare’s slope shall be consistent with the residence roof flare

	Either actual slope or
	In slope difference to the primary slope of the house roof or,
	Of course, both.

Stating that the fold should be consistent on the vertical to subordinate structure with the house flare’s fold to subordinate structure

GARAGE DORMER REDESIGN

Proportion garage dormer body width to its roof plane width as the existing Front Of House dormer

1-7/8”:6”::x:25’-6

	where the former ratio is sticked from the Front Of House photo provided and
	the latter ratio is from Before The Architect drawing based on metrics provided for Garage footprint and roof height limitation

x=7.9688’≈8’

Proportion the garage dormer body height from roof intersection with the dormer’s front face up to dormer ridge compared to roof rise relative to the originally drawn Front Of House dormer’s similar height to its rise

2 -1/2”:3-7/16”::x:11’

	where the former ratio is from the original drawing and
	the latter ratio is from Before The Architect drawing

x=8’

Comment: This equality is as it should be both correct in fundamental and in application, the former being soundly proportionate at 1:1 and the latter allowing marginal dominance to the Craftsman-splayed, sized slightly over the top vergeboard profile defining the roof slope.

Design notes, intended to be both consistent with existing and seminal styles

	Set the dormer’s front face at the fold, i.e., over the double top plates (as the other dormers’ settings appear to be)
	Apply x6 linear inch nominal width as head and foot timbers (more in-keeping with the Back Of House dormer and original house dormer design)
	Apply not less than x4 linear inch nominal width as vertical timbers (again in-keeping with visible and original-design precedent)
	Separate 2 double-hung windows by 2x vertical timber true width (given the latitude afforded by dormer fenestration variance between Front Of House and Back Of House)
	Set sill not less than 5 linear inches above finish roof abut to front face of dormers, which sill as drawn sets 7 linear inches above rough roof frame (this is about good building practice as much as good design)
	In lieu of cottage style windows, one may form identical double-hung windows with even sashes as apparently in dormer fenestration at Back Of House (permitted by Back Of House dormer fenestration and which frees up having to grasp for larger [read: taller] windows reminiscent of Tudor style which form of fenestration is very largely not in evidence with existing)
	Upper sash shall be 4/4/4 or 3/3/3, preferably square, in any case each glaze shall be not wider than tall (as represented throughout existing, importantly including the roof dormers)
	Lower sash shall be clear (an absolute given based on existing and style characteristic)
	Overhangs at eaves and gable ends shall be 12 linear inches (which closer up should be sufficient to impose some and which at 16 linear inches looked fly-away; additionally, utility buildings are not to be gussied up…if, for example, Garage were a cottage, the AG might see this differently and run out the vergeboards a bit more)
	Overhangs at eaves shall be open timber in Craftsman style consistent with existing treatment at rafter tails, noting approximately equal end-cuts for both faces in existing
	Overhang at gable end may be braced with exposed beam ends or braces, the latter consistent with existing (beam ends being in designer’s opinion correct for utility, or outbuilding, element, possibly considered very marginally whimsical while still correctly in-style)
	Pitch the dormer roof evenly at 9.5/12, or 20% variance to primary roof pitch at Garage of 12/12 (rules is rules)
	Vergeboard and cornice, of fascia board, shall each be x8 linear inch nominal (and not less and maybe a tad more, intentionally strong visually, including 5/4 thickness)

GARAGE SETBACK

	Distinguishing the setback segment of Garage from the vehicle bays’ area at the roof system begs further distinction below the setback roof
	Designers prefer to mimic the Front Of House main entrance, albeit toned down in deference to Garage’s utility status and derivative expectation as to appearance
	Design notes:

Center the single-swing, if possible (see below in re potential conflict of elements)

Widen it from 28 to 30 and retain the 68 height

	At 2868 it looks dinky even without the big dormer nearby
	With the dormer, the single swing at 2868 was emphatically disproportioned

It is designers’ experience and standard practice that utility doors both interior and exterior should be 30 with for both safety and convenience

Mount a hood molding atop the door, smaller and simpler than existing at Front Of House

Set a roof above the door

	Extending at least 12 linear inches from wall forward with
	Ridge intersecting the flare fold and
	Apply in-fill consistent with Front Of House, albeit smaller and simpler
	Present the rafters consistent with those of Garage dormer

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF ELEMENTS

Specifically beyond the purview of this work, but undeniably a potential problem in the construction phase and with implications back to the design phase, is the interior stairway

It is AG’s opinion that the metrics presented for the stairway – 8’ maximum rise and 9’ minimum run –

	Could portend unsafe and inconvenient conditions
	May allude to a workaround of a difficulty forthcoming in building those stairs

Minimum standards for stairs – on which point, AG is in no mood to quibble and cut corners on safety by creating wiggle-room with reference of distinction as to habitable or dwelling units or the like – involve

	Riser not greater than 7.75 linear inches
	Tread not less than 10 linear inches and
	Headroom overall not less than 80 linear inches from nosing up, including at the head landing
	Landing width and depth shall not be less than stairway served
	Additionally, in AG’s book of standards – a continually clear and unobstructed space not less than a landing area shall be provided at the top and bottom of stairs without regard to crossing door or any other circumstance whatsoever

Several design conditions conspire to oblige one – possibly two – direction changes to the L1-L2 flight, among them

	Limit on building height
	Necessity to keep L1 ceiling height high enough to let an 8’ tall OHD to run up
	Limit on building depth
	Limit on building width
	Call for an L2 at all

Before The Architect urges close study of stairway safety and flight siting and direction before proceeding with construction

Noting that a centered single-swing may…may…be moved right to let a few treads on the way up to L2

If so, then

	Consider deleting the gable roof
	Consider keeping the head moulding, possibly bringing it out a bit more and abutting it tight to the 2’ wall on the right

Note, too, that the window in the South Elevation as presented to Before The Architect appears to be subject to crossing with the rising interior stairs and is omitted in Before The Architect’s subsequent South, or Left Of Garage Elevation

. . . . . . .

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Curved Stair Design ] [ DESIGN STANDARDS ] [ Design Tidbits ] [ Graphics Gulch ] [ LA Shotgun House ] [ Plan Reviews ] [ US PERIODS GEM ]

About Us ◊ jrp2h2000@yahoo.com ◊ 770-889-6964 ◊ Site Map