|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:39 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Right on. Store-front/window wall system manufacturers abound; the selection of profiles and colors continues to grow. I don't have a Sweet's catalog in front of me, but the library should. . .try the Yellow Pages. You may have to invest something in a proper field measurement/drawing/estimate procedure from window manufacturers/dealers, but it would be the necessary step to a satisfactory job.
If the aluminum flashing is neatly done and tight, at present, it should probably be left alone; at some point in the future it could probably be painted, if desired, following appropriate advice for proper bond. If it looks ratty to you, it could be removed and some wood restoration undertaken -- it may be concealing deterioration.
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spend some time on research and preselection of a system and dealer, before committing to a full estimate, if the price for that is steep; go with the one(s) who you feel most comfortable with.
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A quick review of the pella arch. specifications suggests no problem stacking their systems directly on top of an entry door for the sizes at issue here; that plus custom grills, assuming they have obscure glass avail (literature suggests this) and its a done deal at relatively low cost.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent. Every practical consideration would point to dividing the wall into upper (all glass) and lower (door + glass) sections, divided by a continuous horizontal element above the door. If this is unavoidable, so be it -- at least that rail is aligned with the adjacent living room window sills. Perhaps only a metal system would allow for a continuous grid, unbroke at that point, with the door as a unique element integrated into the grid, my preferred solution.
I could see the door as a clear-finished wood element -- is that oak on the stair baluster inside? -- in contrast to a white grid, or as a color element -- a favorite of the original designers of these houses. And the door could be glazed, or a plain flat panel -- either would look good, in my opinion. Only if the shutters and other traditional elements are an important element of the house to you, would I sanction the use of a (single) raised panel on the door - you indicated you have added similar garage doors, I believe.
The final detail is the door hardware; even with a traditional style door, a nod should be given to the overall style of the house in the form of modern hardware. A simple spherical knob, such as the Schlage "Orbit," with or without a c 5" round rosette backplate (for a flat door) or a thumb-latch vertical handle such as their "Century" model, would be appropriate, I think; metal color and finish to match other nearby hardware: mail slot, doorbell, etc.
It's possible the windows over the garage are replacements; if so, the originals may have been a little larger. But the range of windows across the facade seems fairly consistent overall; without the shutters they would really look undersized, wouldn't they? If the windows function well on the interior, a more modern alternative -- someday -- would be to replace the louvered shutters with a continuous band of painted flat material, extending on either side of the windows as the shutters do now, and connecting them with a single wider matching panel in the middle.
Color can do wonders for the composition of a house like yours. In addition to the accent color already present, a paler accent shade, or a slightly darker version of the "body color," could be used on the recessed plane of the garage. This would ephasize attractively the horizontality of the house as a whole -- nicely countered by your new entry window -- and the hovering volume of the element above the garage. The recessed garage plane would then read a little more as a "foundation" element.
I'm a former resident of eastern and southeastern Massachusetts, and retain fond memories of the area and the people I knew there.
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking again at your photos, I'm inclined to say that the windows over the garage look about as good as one would want -- if anything, the sill line is a little high, maybe, but the proportion and the repeating vertical rectangles of window sash and shutter are satisfying.
What space is served by the newer, taller window to the right of the living room? Is that a room which would benefit from a repeat of the new glazed entry grid? (Heh-heh!)
I admire the crushed rock beneath the handsome fieldstone walls at the front of the property. Is that your work?
To those fellow die-hard modernists who might be following this discussion, I defend my endorsement of some traditional elements appearing on this structure by reminding them of the concept of "contextualism," wherein a benefit is seen in making some effort to relate the present project to its New England neighbors. Just as an heirloom Duncan Phyfe table must make itself at home in the owner's newly-acquired contemporary house, so too can the past and the present co-exist in the fabric of a residence such as this.
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See various simulations consistent with the discussion.
Going left to right, top to bottom
1. oak door, lower glazing opaque, upper clear
2. full light door, lower glazing opaque, upper clear
3. oak door, all glazing clear (didn't come out entirely uniform in photoshop)
4. double door, full light - made grid smaller to fit door
5. same as 4 but contemplating potential header requirement
6. commercial entry grid, opaque glazing throughout, grey trim across house, roofline
7. same as 6, stock trim
8. same as 2, with header
My preference, no doubt #3 - oak door, no header, uniform grid, clear glazing throughout.
If a header is needed, #6 with double door
Appeaciate recognition of new england and need to conform to general look of area.
Space to right of LR is Office in MB suite - nice window seat in front of it.
Crushed rock was my work; wall is more like 'pile of rocks' but it works; prior owner work - informal look works for us.
Windows above garage are indeed replacements, but not much smaller than original.
|
Filesize: 239.81 KB
Filename: All variations.jpg
Viewed: 770 Time(s)
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yup. Good work. Only ones I hate are with big header -- can't imagine actual structural header would need to be more than, maybe, double or triple the size of the other grid elements? From what I can see, #3 is probably good. Any inclusion of muntins in the glazed doors -- which I see are nicely lined up -- will result in smaller panes at top and bottom. Not horrible, but "argues" with the even spacing and consistency achieved in the rest of the composition. If glazed, I'm leaning toward a single large pane in the door. It'll be interesting to see what Pella and others have to offer. . .
What is the vertical measurement, entry floor to peak?
Interesting look at possible color-banding -- it's fraught with potential peril, but worth exploring. Carry on.
While contextual conformity is not an imperative, in my view, it is an appropriate and beneficial gesture; perhaps that's what you are saying, too?
I'm enjoying myself, at any rate! SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Floor to ceiling is 15' tall side, 14' short side.
Checking loading with pella for needed headers/bracing if any.
Wife and I pondering ##3 and ##4; single door config definitely matches (original) home style better - concerned over privacy using clear glass low er (could put shade on lower glass - very sheer and only draw when needed.) Like single solid oak door very much - geometry very interesting regarding break in grid
for solid color door.
Double door breaks floor to ceil glass - would have to use glass in doors to remedy this, would need to be somewhat obscure for privacy - potential for competing paterns in door glazing v. wall glazing. Also, would have to use 30" doors - perhaps too narrow.
In either case, would need storm door - even with low profile frame, these always detract from the overall entry.
Will update when I hear from Pella.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Essentially, the loads on the window wall are a) vertical (gravity) and b) wind load. Additionally, the action of the door (through "slamming") imposes a load, at its latch-side jamb, that is perpendicular to the plane of the window wall. If the hinge jamb of the door is at the (left) wall, it can be said to impose no live load on the wall structure. So, the header, arranged to span from wall to wall, is working to counter the live load of the operation (closing/slamming) of the door, the (horizontal) header being the shortest and therefore more efficient of the possible members to accomplish this structural imperative. The alternative is a vertical member, the "stud" adjacent to the latch jamb, that continues to the ceiling. As a beam approx three times longer than the header mentioned, it is far less efficient in countering the horizontal ("in-out") load placed upon it, and would presumably have to be a bulkier member to accomplish its job.
A suggestion made by a friend watching this thread, was to center the door in the width of the opening, framed between two vertical members going to the ceiling, and a header over the door, perhaps continued on either side horizontally to the edges of the opening. This would give an arrangement of five pieces of glass, plus the door. I like that, too.
I know a storm door is a "given" where you live, but you might take some advice from your door guy on the current state of thinking on that. I know that I was raised in a 'thirties frame house a couple of blocks from Long Island Sound, in downstate New York, where we had a climate not unlike yours, I think. The front of the house was reconfigured by a local architect, in the mid 'fifties, giving a relocated front door, opening eastward onto a five-foot-deep open porch. No storm door was installed there, and I don't believe it was missed. It sometimes seems to me to be just an added obstacle to entering and exiting, although in cold weather it might allow the front door to remain ajar for a couple of moments longer, when people are going in and out. Curiously, I'm not aware of anyone taking the trouble to remove a storm door for the warm months. . .
If there is to be a continuous header above the door and adjacent window, I suppose that would be the place to mount a shade or blind. Many screen-like fabrics in light colors are now available.
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for continued advise - will render 5 piece design tonite (on aside, friend also suggested picture window with grids to match entry in office window (right of lr)). This would yield 1 foot sq. grids. 12" to each of left and right of front door. If header needed, Pella docs suggest possible use of 2x4 steel tube with high load above it - this would add minimal header width between entry unit and window above.
Storm door is not, in our case, for storms. It is to permit my children to wait on the front steps for friends, rides, etc. while my wife can observe them from kitchen above. Not sure of any other way around this; however, if we did door in solid oak and white storm with low profile full-lite frame, might not be too bad.
Watch new thread I will start for layout/floorplan questions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry -- guess I should have asked at the start for the full available opening size (ie, full width of entry space) as that's what the window/door unit should ideally occupy. Seeing your floor plan on the other thread reminds me that there are two stairs there, so that would require +- six feet. I've got the graph paper out, now, and will report back. The pictures are legible when I print them out -- looks good. I understand the use of the storm door.
SDR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be clear on dimensions:
Finished wall to wall of entry foyer is 74"; one or two inches of (maybe unavoidable) trim yields 72" although you could conceivably tuck the jack studs for a header flush to the wall for say max 71" rough - will never know till we open the wall. Will have to have alternative designs or just let contractor spend a day and open wall and frame max rough opening before final decision/ordering. Then tarp up with plastic and wait for entry units.
What we do know is the current entry rough opening is 62.5" Likely we can do much better than this.
Height is 15' at high side; 14' at low side (give or take a few ""); not sure how close to ceiling we can get, but based on observation of roof structure, likely all the way up as roof rests on front to back beams thus likely that wall in that are has little structural role. Adjacent wall supports main front to back beam.
For reference, in picture 1, the grid spacing, targeted for 18" is depicted way too big; horizontal dimension ok, too big vertically.
db
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| #6 is by far superior. The grey band in its simplicity, grounds the jagged roofline, almost like a stream at the foot of a mountain range.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbbarron
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Northeast
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:29 am Post subject: Final Design Near |
|
|
After much consideration of comments in this thread/forum, I attach the near complete front design with new entry and addition (left side - not sure if we are doing this yet). As much as there was opposition to a third garage in front, setting this back a bit softens the look/domination of garages. Also, after much thought, this is really the only practical way to add the space we want. Moreover, the entry now captures so much focus of the front facade, draws attention away from garage area.
Note following recent changes if you have been watching this thread:
1)Setback left side addition
2)Tech Lighting Cresendo behind glass - in my opinion, this is a visually near perfect; adds much greater interest to entry through glazing, also lines of fixture follow house lines nearly perfectly, series of interrelated shallow angles.
3)darker roof
As always, candid comments are greatly welcome.
db
|
Filesize: 193.38 KB
Filename: Modified Entryway with addition and garage setback Tech Cresendo (small).jpg
Viewed: 536 Time(s)
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
