House in Progress Diary

I like the original; I don't like either of the renovated ones but if I have to pick one, then I prefer the second one. Because of its less boxy look. I am a fan of gables and variations in the roof line to add appeal and interest. A four sided box doesn't do it for me.

Do you know the book How Buildings Learn? It's a book I've been thinking about reading ever since our own house search a few years ago, when we encountered several dwellings that we call What Were They Thinking houses. It sounds as though it discusses a lot of these very issues.

There is also something to be said for keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and the 2nd photo (1st renovation) does not; it sticks out like a sore thumb. The second one while not perfect, does attain that and blends harmoniously with it's neighbors. Aside from not liking the style the 1st renovation was going for, the fact that there is a defining line of contrasting brick and siding makes it look jaring; had they matched the brick uniformly to better disguise that it's an add on would've looked less garish. But hey, I'm no architect. And you were totally right what you said about people wanting to stay in their neighborhood, so now I feel guilty for picking on them. Their contractor? Nah, he's fair game! (or her) ; )

I vote for house #2 (or I should say Homeowner #2 picture). It's addition is not as obvious because the owners took care to keep the original style (or at least tried).
The one above it looks like a 'sliced and diced' version. It looks boxy, unwelcoming, and like it might want to be an office instead of a residence.

I think the 1st house is too tall and a greedy get-the-most-space-for-the-least-money play. No regard for the street aesthetic in that reno- doesn't even look like an architect helped.

The 2nd reads more like a story and a half and I consider harmonious with the look and feel of a bungalow. They showed remarkable restraint for Chicago. There are similar projects in my own 'hood with 2nd story add-ons that involve even more greedy dormer add-ons, like the twin gabled dormers on each side, or the dreaded giant (and frowned upon) shed dormers on either side of the main gable that make the house overall a squarish profile (or 'wings'), and from the street it looks hideous. Most Americans I am finding could give a bleep what the house looks like from the street and build as much space as possible. That proportion seems to increase in the suburbs, which is one reason why they seems to have no sense of 'place'.
Good post!

I'll have to confess that I haven't studied bungalows much, but here are a few thoughts.

First, I like the look of the original best. The second expansion looks better than the first expansion.

The first photo you showed of the, "Hmm. Not a bad expansion," is, as you said, not bad. I don't care for the double gable effect, but do like that they made an effort to replicate the same architectural elements and materials on the addition.

In my opinion, a good addition a home (bungalow, victorian, or even a ranch house) is dependant on several things. An addition should fit seemlessly onto the original structure. The same materials should be used, the same style of design, and the same architectuaral features. Proportion is important too. Try to keep things on the same scale. If the house has huge double hung windows, use windows of the same size even if they are a modern window.

We've tried to keep these factors in mind when we added two additions to the Devil Queen. We custom milled new siding to match the original siding, we salvaged nearly identical windows, we followed the existing lines and designs of the house, and we built everything on the same scale. Once we're finished, you shouldn't be tell that we added on.

From what I've seen in most of these photos, it looks like most of these folks were interested in more square footaged & didn't give a crap how it looked from the outside.

If a homeowner had to expand up into two stories (and I understand why some do here in Chicago, it is expensive to live here. A lot of my neighbors are lower middle to low income and there is definitely the expanded family thing), I would definitely prefer Homeowner #2's expansion. It looks simple enough that it might be able to be executed without breaking the bank of the average homeowner here, yet does complement the style of the first floor more than the expansion of Homeowner #1. And definitely more than the trailer home approach or beetle wings!

Wouldn't it be cool if someone, perhaps an architecture school, as a public service, came up with 3-4 different plan drawings for adding on to bungalows that were offered through the city for free? I've seen the CHBA plans and, while they are very well meaning, they 1) aren't free, and 2) don't seem to provide enough options for most homeowners who need to expand up and not just to the back of the house.

I like the 2nd more than the 1st and I think it looks quite good in fact. But, if the first expansion had done a better job on siding (say they had bricked it and copied some of the cool embellishments and details from the brick below) I think it would have been okay. Also, it looks very much like a 4-square afterwards and I happen to love that style too. Example #1 almost looks more prairie-ish than bungalow.

In the day of the McMansion these people have found a solution without feeling like they've got to have the biggest new thing to come down the pike. Adding on is nothing new and many of us have bought houses that have been made bigger somewhere down the line. Both of these examples look okay to me, especially #2.

The ones you posted earlier were downright awful.

For the love of all that is holy! That expansion with the addition on top! Ack!!!! That's what they call a "scroll-down" at Go Fug Yourself. You're happily reading along, la la la, and then WHAM the hideousness hits you in the face! :)

Call me crazy, but I actually like Expansion #1 better. I think the owners were going more for a prairie/foursquare style, which, while a different style than the original, is still Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired which is especially appropriate in Chicago. They flattened the roof of the sunporch area, which adds to the effect and shows the design intent of the owner. I like it.

I think #2 actually kind of looks like the many brand-new suburban houses that TRY to look like "authentic" bungalows but miss the boat. There's almost too much detail on that one, and it almost seems too big for the lot. I know I'm in the minority here, but I vote for #1.

Expansions certainly are tricky! I don't agree that the 1st example is so terrible. I think whoever planned it out could have done more in the front to balance out the main floor. Additional windows directly above the 1st floor? It feel unbalanced with the center french doors. I think some creative windows could salvage this remodel.

I love the idea of architects donating a handful of free expansion plans that would accommodate the majority of their cities small scale architecture. I am currently in design school and may propose it to the architects I meet. They certainly are the loudest voices criticizing bad design.

When I first looked, I thought the first addition looked awful, and the second was very nice. Then after reading all the comments, and staring a bit more, I decided it wasn't so bad. I still like the second one better, and I decided it was because if I hadn't seen the before pic, I wouldn't have suspected that it was an addition. I think that's what makes a good add-on. I happen to like it when the same architectual feel is maintained, but I think really good additions look like they could have been built that way initially. A bad addition (in my opinion) is very obviously an addition. (And often looks like a double-wide fell out of the sky, as you pointed out earlier...)

i prefer #1, or i would if it would have been taken just a bit further (farther?). i agree that the front windows need to be wider---a triple window would have balanced the sunporch and given it more of a prairie authenticity. the roof shingles don't help either---the roof needs texture and weight. tile or slate would have been nice, with rafter tails or some sort of interesting treatment for the eaves. house #2 is a yawner. it's a much blander, more generic house than the original bungalow they started with. it lacks the solid gravity of the more prairie-style #1, and it lacks the charm of the original. it's just a house.