I have an acquaintance that asked me for assistance on creating a addition to their house with certain criteria. They live in a subdivision with large homes that share a continuous strip of land connecting the back yards together without fences. House is located in Atlanta, Georgia (U.S.). Design intent was to capture some privacy in the backyard by creating a “U” configuration with addition. The center part would be somewhat private from general view and allow landscape to eventually infill where sightlines imposed. They have children so they wanted to keep visual supervision from their master suite/library addition to both pool and family room when children have company.

Existing home is typical of large homes in our region and somewhat difficult to make additions to. In attached images, I’ve colored the existing footprint with a monotone color. From the rear view, master suite is located on left side of pool adjacent to pool house (upper level). Family room is to the right (upper level). The design is a somewhat developed idea I presented today with positive feedback from client.

I’ll develop the plans and elevations over the next few weeks with ground breaking mid-March. Presentation boards will be used to communicate idea to contractor as well as residential community review approval. As always, comments are welcome. Design's a collective process.

image 02

Image 03

image 04

image 05

I know you said you are going to develop some plans and elevations after initial comments from neighborhood review, but do you have any plans, even if just sketches, you could share to help get an understanding of how the new spaces will work with the existing? I am also interesting too hear what the neighbors have to say about this addition knowing how your typical sub-division associations are in the good ol' USA :)

Good point wizum. Attached plans address level 100, 200 and landuse with buildable area. The Owner called me this morning and has obtained residential approval. Existing building footprint is shaded putty orange.

Level 200

Site Study

this will surely be binned, sorry but hey, if it's sketchup, post it in the sketchup forum, you got great support there for a presenation such as yours...

personally I don't fancy the neo-revival-whatever period design, however it seems that all throughout the world people of sorts (even architects?) are perpertuating these sorts of McMansion designs... it's as easy as 1-2-3... keep up the good work... make the world look more of the same!

"ooh that's great, I look like my neighbour and my neighbour looks like me! great minds think alike"

:puke:

now.. for some proper extensions :

http://www.chinahouse.com/newsphoto/2005/09/27/09/095700848.jpg

I'd have to agree, spade...mcmansions are very unnerving...

reurbanize, how many sq.ft. is this project? and how much does it bring the total up to?

The only thing that stands out, looking past my own prejudices, is that the "bell" pavillion/gazebo doesn't seem to fit in as well as it could...

Spadstick,

I couldn't agree with you any more on your comment. Personally, I take a whole different approach to architecture (quality not quantity), but I had an opportunity to help out a friend in need and add alittle interest to their life. Their alternative was to have a very anxious builder do the addition. I had spoken to the builder and he assured me that he could design the addition of a napkin. Flipside is I had to do this in a way that would follow strict neighborhood covenants. The responsible thing to do on this particular project was to enhance present structure with an addition that added depth and usability. I guess a traditionalist would be just as upset but the reality is I didn’t design the McMansion, just modified part of it so it actually worked for the Client.

As far as the s.f., if you subtract the covered porches, addition adds about 20% to overall footprint.

Just to follow the design mission statement for the site -

We want to create an outstanding collection of Contemporary and Modern Projects from all over the world primarily using SketchUp (but not limited to). Note: There is a seperate section for projects to be critiqued that are modelled and designed with other programs. Members of the forum shall also strive to execute models that are technically excellant examples of the use of Sketchup.

Highlight the "Contemporary + Modern Projects"

Just to follow the design mission statement for the site -
Highlight the "Contemporary + Modern Projects"

jp- I hate to say it but this ( design solution) does qualify under the broad scope of contemporary( always hated that word) and modern..Its built with materials of the day.. within a albeit contracted ( pardon the pun) and banal style of the day .. it is a modern contemporary house.. Perhaps the language of the mission statement should be a bit more specific to exclude this type of design solution.

perhaps.."Exemplary projects which demonstrate both technical and design progress in both their architectural design as well as the use of SU as a primary tool of 3d modeling." still subjective but a bit more to the point perhaps.. obviously a seperate conversation.

I think helping a friend is a noble gift. But if i were a chef and my friend wanted help with their car I woud send them to a mechanic. If i owned a Ferrari and my friend wanted driving lesson ..I would send him to driving school where they use Chevy Caprices. If I were a master french chef and my friends wanted a barbeque catered.. I would send them elsewhere. There is no shame in specialization and not compromising ones quality.

The dilution of design starts with ordinary compromise in my opinion. Just ask Zaha Hadid about the change in her programs since Vitra.

I would have helped my friends in much the same way... but never told anyone else in the profession a word about it. I am proud of all my work but some work is not worthy of sharing as professional progress. Its more problem solving than design progress. Others are purely executed with quality and professional expertise for their monetary contrbution.

I still find this solution clever and seemingly appropriate given the multitude of constraints. Thanks for sharing.

We live a world with compromises at each corner we turn as stewards of our client’s resources. As Architects and Designers, the reality is we meet extraordinary deadlines shadowed by budgets that stretch our Clients realm of affordability. Again, the point of this post is simply identifying a somewhat constant factor of consumer grade design by a consumer driven builder and resolve Owner’s unfortunate obstacle of a space that doesn’t work with their lifestyle.

I can’t blame JP for reestablishing this site’s mission statement but I believe the challenge was very contemporary in light of what’s existing with respect to alterations needed to obtain results as presented.

Page, eloquent analogy. We all have projects that should have never happened and maybe being noble is a concept that’s not synonymous with architecture anymore (in some professional’s eyes). Given the alternative, I much rather see a friend develop some ownership in their dwelling outside of a mortgage. Being responsible starts with facing the reality of project opportunities such as this one and readapting or altering their very existence. The addition was inevitable, I wanted to take the opportunity to actually listen to the client and understand their needs prior to digging a footing.

i hate terms and phrases.. the problem with contemporary as a classification its the same with this design it is crappy guidelines that rely on stupid pointless terms which eventually perpetuate and strenghthen crappy, unhelathy buildings of lil or no significance.

if we want to advance we must learn a way to get around these annoying councils and their guidelines......

also wake up clients.... aaarrgh i cannot help but think that alot of pullers would be able to design and stretch themselves if it weren't for their clients...

alos two of the most famous houses had clients that were wanting to adavnce arch... farnsworth and phillip johnson glasshouse, in both cases the architect was basically the client(i think mies may have been bedding dr. farnsworth and he thought he'd live in the house) and they produced two buildings that have pushed the boundaries......

oh well...

I think it is a very adequate design solution to the problem, it does substantially improve upon a tasteless house which is indeed very difficult to work with.

It is important because this is an example of a real and frequent contemporary problem, or are we going to ignore the existance of so many more similar examples?

I commend you to dedicate your evident talents to help here.

I see myself sympathising with both sides here & is also a problem I personally face all too often especially with extensions to existing properties.

The problem stems from the unfortunate design of the existing "modern" house & to be fair to Reurbanize there is very little choice given the existing style & the client. So I think sometimes we have to put our own desires aside and just do what we can to the best of our ability. Get paid & move on as quickly as possible. I will admit this doesn't thrill the "inner me" but I have taken pride in designing an extension which marries well to the existing.

For my own benefit I would be very open to suggestions & discussions in developing a strategy as to what do in situations like this. I believe it would help everyone in similar circumstances. :cheers: :not worth

above is a bit of a rant, i think the design actually doesn't look overgrown which can be a problem when extensions of quaint traditional housing typologies occur. the design is a solution to the problem but the problem is the result of councils, clients and building methods.... how can we get this to change. its prob. 70 years on since the case study houses but what have we learnt???

or does what we learnt even matter???

also the renderings are very good i wish i had as good a technique, i assume they are done by piranesi???

anyway if it was me i'd have been sympathetic to the new building but i don't think i would like to re create it.. so i may use similar material palette but vary shapes and sizes, maybe more contemp. lines(i hate that term)... so that the new extension was visible and stregthened the existing building....

this will surely be binned, sorry but hey, if it's sketchup, post it in the sketchup forum, you got great support there for a presenation such as yours...

personally I don't fancy the neo-revival-whatever period design, however it seems that all throughout the world people of sorts (even architects?) are perpertuating these sorts of McMansion designs... it's as easy as 1-2-3... keep up the good work... make the world look more of the same!

"ooh that's great, I look like my neighbour and my neighbour looks like me! great minds think alike"

:puke:

now.. for some proper extensions :

http://www.chinahouse.com/newsphoto/2005/09/27/09/095700848.jpg

What an ugly house :puke:

but very modern...

Looking a bit more closely on the proposals ... In this particular case I don't think the arched beams to balcony help & I don't see them occur in the original. Roof extension overhang to balcony seems out of scale & may be improved with a hipped gable? Window styles are mixed .. why?
Hope this helps

Developer: Would you like your McMansion supersized?

Homeowner: Yes, please.

Developer: Could I sign you up for an additional credit to deplete the world's resources?

Homeowner: Oh, Yes!

Developer: Thank you. Pull your Hummer up to the next window and I'll sign you up for our weekly urban sprawl newsletter and our drawing for an endangered species fur coat. Enjoy!

Developer: Would you like your McMansion supersized?

Homeowner: Yes, please.

Developer: Could I sign you up for an additional credit to deplete the world's resources?

Homeowner: Oh, Yes!

Developer: Thank you. Pull your Hummer up to the next window and I'll sign you up for our weekly urban sprawl newsletter and our drawing for an endangered species fur coat. Enjoy!

LOL :D

Dont forget to sign up for our tax credits and dividend giveaway..

Putting the good natured comedy of excess aside..on a personal note i am not sure that that much sf is required.
I live in a 750sf house which although now only houses me.. housed a family of four for 15 years.( 2 bedrooms).. the house next door is 1200sf and housed a family of 7 for 26 years.. This was not uncommon. Although the norm these days in the US is a bit like a frat house display of 'size'.

Althought the house is only 20% bigger.. it seems as if it was close to 5500 or 6000 sf to begin with making it more like 8000sf without porches and decks. Not small but assuming that they have 8 children and 4 cars. Probably approriate use of resources. Who is to say whats to big for one person or 10 people...And perhaps the house has liberal use of wheatboard with soy based rigid insualtion and has a geothermal well fed heating system and a photovoltaic lighting sytems fed from the small solar array.

It probably does not have these modern conveniences... but i still find given the constraints this is a very competent solution.

Upon further inspection I do think the notion of redefining the look of the rear with the double gabled rear extensions or hyphens could have been exagerated a bit making the the extensions more of a new house at each side.. this could have reinvented the rear elevations as the" new " front. While reimaginging the house forms as more simplistic and monolithic in shape. It may presently suffer a bit on all elevations from "overarticulation- itis". This is not a specific term like "contemporary" but it does have symptoms .."and we are working on a cure. Doctors like 'reurban' are working tirelessly on a cure and expect to get back to you all with their findings after the next funding drive.. thank you for your patience."

Red/Page,

Excellent input. I did exaggerate the overhangs to some degree as well as large covered porches that screen direct southern exposure. The arches and oversimplified “columns” were taken from the covered walk from garage to mudroom in attempts to maintain a small threat of “design” from existing structure. I agree, scale and proportion will need to be refined throughout design and it will most likely evolve. Existing watertable was continued to some degree on the front right side to assist in absorbing existing façade into addition.

I have a great respect for Architects like Sarah Susanka and her whole approach to design. Quite honestly, I can’t defend the ratio between square foot to occupant ratio on these obtuse structures, especially with high cost of energy and abusive use of our natural resources. I refuse to stand in judgment without getting involved when faced with the opportunity to help/create awareness at grassroots level. In some cases, it may come in the form of recommending recycled materials for the porch deck and railing systems as part of client’s educational process. The effort that I’m putting into this house will never be compensated but fees aren't the driving force. I have a tremendous appreciation for folks like Red and Page for understanding the dilemma. It’s important to make a difference, even if it’s one house at a time.

so just a question. if you would like to make a difference one house at a time... why havent you addressed any of those issues on this one. to specify "recycled timber" on the porch is a token effort... there a much deeper problems with this building that require more than just a change in materials. anyway, i hope that in future, you attempt to educate your clients... people can be very self-righteous about their consumption patterns. the world needs to be changed quickly and drastically if anything is going to be done to reverse the environmental crisis that is on us now.

I really can sympathize with this design. A recent client asked me to design a house on the waterfront. The client himself is the owner of a concrete company specializing in foundations. Initially, my first reaction was a "concrete box" with views of the river. Upon my first meeting with the client on site, looking around I noticed a neighbor had built an unique custom home and the other houses were similar for the location. The custom home next door made it easier to digest the simple "concrete box" concept. However, the client wasn't interested in being unique and suggested a more practical design he found in a plan magazine.
Without getting too far into this story, what I designed is contemporary but not modern. I know my design responsibilities include educating the client, but all said and done I really need this commission in order to practice design. Furthermore, I applied my best judgment, knowledge and experience and produced a design the client appreciates.
It only seems fair that as design professionals we can study and learn from each other and I am somewhat disappointed with the reaction from this post.
Not every project will be in a magazine nor will every client have a modern taste. So please accept design for being a part of the global human experience and not just personal taste.

PS - regarding Zaha, it seems her design talent has only matured from meeting practical clients with practical projects, 20 years ago very few of her design concepts could be made into reality...

Wow this is an old thread and one ugly building. The original (a sort of faux neo colonial style) does not offend me as much as the propsoed addition (what would you call it???) which is outrageously rubbish. (the vomit smilie is oh so appropriate)

That's the problem when you get a modernist to design some stuff in a 'style' they haven't got the first clue and it turns out horrible. Its why these clasisists throw the word diletantes at us!

The responsible thing to have done, reurbanize, would be to point your aquantenace in the direction of a good architect conversant in faux colonial building.

It absolutely does not seem to me a bad project. In fact it is very professional. What happens it is a kind of design that here in this forum definitively doesn't please

It takes ugliness to a new level.

.....
It only seems fair that as design professionals we can study and learn from each other and I am somewhat disappointed with the reaction from this post.
Not every project will be in a magazine nor will every client have a modern taste. So please accept design for being a part of the global human experience and not just personal taste.......

Unfortunately I can't really say that the majority of reaction to this post, is surprising, in the least bit. As soon as I saw the images posted, I could already see the vomit emoticons being splashed all around, in response. The general rule of thumb here seems to be, if it has pitched roofs, arches or "classical" features to any degree, then it will universally get panned Funnily enough though, I would be willing to bet you that most of the people trashing this guy's post don't even know the difference between 'modern' and contemporary, nor the significance of each in the general context of architecture and architectural design.

At the end of the day it's the person that holds the purse strings who really drives the direction of the design, particularly insofar as taste is concerned and more so specifically in residential design where the building takes on an added personal dimension. And really, how many architects and designers can claim to be so well off or financially secure enough to be able to turn away hordes of clients who want designs done in styles that don't appeal to them? I sympathize with architects who have to design stuff in styles that may not be their first choice or preference, or styles that may not be too, shall we say, popular? if only to make ends meet. And while I simultaneously understand the need of many in our profession to believe ( deludedly, IMHO) that, implicit in the training, practice and execution of our profession, is the prerogative to enlighten the "uninformed" and uneducated masses regarding aesthetics and style in architectural design ( and more so, in terms of what's modern and what's not modern), I wouldn't begrudge anyone their right to make a living, I would still consider it a bit boorish to crap all over someone else's efforts with pointlessly unhelpful and subjective comments like, "it's ugly". But that's just me.

I have always had a hard time deciding what's modern ( and/or contemporary) insofar as where to draw the line is concerned, and whether this would only apply to buildings and architecture designed north of the Tropic of Cancer and West of GMT. Or should all buildings be designed to look as though they were meant to be in Western Europe and North America, regardless of environmental, climatic, social and cultural considerations; - just so they can conform to the "taste" police's standards, and not be considered, ugly?

Anyway, enough ranting; back to toeing the line:-...... down with McMansions!!!

Well said, Bricklyne.

It's always a tightrope walk. Pleasing the client on the one hand and on the other trying to design something that does represent our time.

But I agree with you that these destructive comments don't help at all.
Buildings like this are a big part of our reality and need to be dealt with.

Nevertheless,
at the end of the day the client has to be happy with the house he got.
He has to live in it not the architect.

Nevertheless,
at the end of the day the client has to be happy with the house he got.
He has to live in it not the architect.

And we have to live near

Unfortunately I can't really say that the majority of reaction to this post, is surprising, in the least bit. As soon as I saw the images posted, I could already see the vomit emoticons being splashed all around, in response. The general rule of thumb here seems to be, if it has pitched roofs, arches or "classical" features to any degree, then it will universally get panned Funnily enough though, I would be willing to bet you that most of the people trashing this guy's post don't even know the difference between 'modern' and contemporary, nor the significance of each in the general context of architecture and architectural design.
It's not like that at all.
There's some projects in the forum that are next to be a reproduction of a classical style and yet they managed to get a propper criticism.
This project not only mymics the language of the existing house, but also extremely exagerates it with a faux-style with complicated roofs and galleries.
I too am against the pointless "It's ugly" posts, but I think in this case the house speaks for itself.

I'll just stay away from the recent comments, but I did notice something in rereading this post: fire the landscape architect. Hire a new one. The lack of depth is poor. Choice in material is very lacking. Use landscape as another layer of language in the design rather than a boring "border" of repetition...

And we have to live near

At some point in the future someone is going to ask the question "who was the architect?" We need to consider this question very carefully because, as we all know, architects are blamed for most buildings in the environment whether they designed them or not. I've refused to do jobs such as this one and told the client they need to find a more compliant architect. Sure the client pays the bill but I've yet to find a price for compromising what I believe in when it comes to design.

It's not like that at all.
There's some projects in the forum that are next to be a reproduction of a classical style and yet they managed to get a propper criticism.
This project not only mymics the language of the existing house, but also extremely exagerates it with a faux-style with complicated roofs and galleries.
I too am against the pointless "It's ugly" posts, but I think in this case the house speaks for itself.

.....well,the way I see it, there's a whole world of difference between "It's ugly!!!" and "I think it's ugly because of reason A, B or C" , or better yet, "I think it doesn't work because of......." . You would think that people who've spent at least 3 or so years learning how to express themselves and their ideas graphically and in a structured system, would have little to no trouble verbally expressing why they think or feel the way they do in an objective and critique-wise helpful and constructive manner. Especially seeing as how much our profession depends so heavily on constructive criticism and feedback from the communal level for one's professional development at the individual level.

But like I said, maybe that's just me.......

At some point in the future someone is going to ask the question "who was the architect?" We need to consider this question very carefully because, as we all know, architects are blamed for most buildings in the environment whether they designed them or not. I've refused to do jobs such as this one and told the client they need to find a more compliant architect. Sure the client pays the bill but I've yet to find a price for compromising what I believe in when it comes to design.

It's good to know that your practice affords you the luxury of standing by your principles and having an elevated level of standards and tastes. But it would be helpful to realize that not everyone can afford to live exclusively on 'principles' and 'tastes', alone; at some point you have to keep the lights on, and pay those those bills.

I'm not advocating "bad" design by any stretch of imagination; I'm merely illuminating the reality that we live in a world dictated by dollars, pesos, euros or sterling pounds as the case may be. And as architects are nowhere near the top of the financial totem pole in the grand scheme of things, it's somewhat unrealistic and silly to think that we can dictate how things get designed and built; and out of those that do get built, what should and should not qualify as "tasteful", "stylish" and modern. This may not apply to you as you've intimated, and more power to you for that; but the world is obviously bigger than you and your sphere of influence.

It's good to know that your practice affords you the luxury of standing by your principles and having an elevated level of standards and tastes. But it would be helpful to realize that not everyone can afford to live exclusively on 'principles' and 'tastes', alone; at some point you have to keep the lights on, and pay those those bills.

I'm not advocating "bad" design by any stretch of imagination; I'm merely illuminating the reality that we live in a world dictated by dollars, pesos, euros or sterling pounds as the case may be. And as architects are nowhere near the top of the financial totem pole in the grand scheme of things, it's somewhat unrealistic and silly to think that we can dictate how things get designed and built; and out of those that do get built, what should and should not qualify as "tasteful", "stylish" and modern. This may not apply to you as you've intimated, and more power to you for that; but the world is obviously bigger than you and your sphere of influence.


Sure the worlds larger than me but I guess what I was saying was how much to you compromise your beliefs/talents or whatever label you put on it for money alone. There are some clients who will just jack you around because they're footing the bill and you can either let them do that to you or not. I choose not to let them do that to me as they are purchasing the use of my skills not the right to mess me around. Last year I had one client who said right from the start of a project that "she would be the architect for this job," well after trying to satisfy her ever changing requirements (and I mean weekly changes of a major nature), I told her she should find an architect more compliant architect as I felt I could no longer provide her with the services she required. I got paid for the work I'd done to that date and the project has been static for over a year. Sure the extra money would have been nice but I think in this game money shouldn't be the only motivation; if it is then dentistry is probably more lucrative. :cheers:

Sure the worlds larger than me but I guess what I was saying was how much to you compromise your beliefs/talents or whatever label you put on it for money alone. There are some clients who will just jack you around because they're footing the bill and you can either let them do that to you or not. I choose not to let them do that to me as they are purchasing the use of my skills not the right to mess me around. Last year I had one client who said right from the start of a project that "she would be the architect for this job," well after trying to satisfy her ever changing requirements (and I mean weekly changes of a major nature), I told her she should find an architect more compliant architect as I felt I could no longer provide her with the services she required. I got paid for the work I'd done to that date and the project has been static for over a year. Sure the extra money would have been nice but I think in this game money shouldn't be the only motivation; if it is then dentistry is probably more lucrative. :cheers:

That's the eternal discussion. Do we can make compromise without compromising (I think we can). But to join with some other advice about this project (that I find is ugly, but it's not an argument) I agree a good landscape designer could be a "plus" (+) and could afford a "saving layer" to the project. Surroundings are too many times forgoten.

It's not like that at all.
There's some projects in the forum that are next to be a reproduction of a classical style and yet they managed to get a proper criticism.

Cacapis is right, it's not like that. Although Bricklyne you may have a point about a house style on this forum, and I can see you enjoy your moral high ground, I don't agree that this building was unfairly treated.

Broadly speaking the building was criticised not beacuse it was somehow stylistically unacceptable but for what can only be described as poor design. Several posts highlighted incorrect' style' detailing, poor massing, the mixture of ouvres etc. Personally I have an attraction to good classical, and good vernacular architecture, its just that this isn't it.

[I think everyone can accept and understand that there are compromises to make in our line of work but that's not really the point here.]

I’ve certainly enjoyed a dynamic cross section of very palatable critiques, emotional outburst and well-articulated summations of this cute little expansion. Early in this thread ReD, InArch and ouesty had posted good comments. I’d recommend you take the time to read them. Bricklyne, you seem to see the reality of what we’re faced with as Designers and Architects in the 21st century.

I guess each of us could hold the first stone and feel more than justified in drawing blood but we’ve all either intervened with less than desirable results (due to the “client variable”), or fell victim to a common process called Value Engineering. I’ve contributed to global warming, strip cut hundreds of acres on the side of beautiful mountains for the sake of one client, stomached eclectic methodologies due to clients that share a slightly skewed vision of what their structure should look like. The reality is we do the very best we can with each problem/situation.

It’s quite appealing that both good and bad architecture can be critiqued globally but there’s a sea of gray area between these two adverbs. Maybe this particular solution’s better suited in a design/build magazine for contractors. Simply stating “Contemporary + Modern Projects” creates a chasm of gray area. Maybe some credit should be given to this effort with respect to the Shelby Cobra 427SC parked in the driveway but then again, its design isn’t contemporary either.