1830's cottage north of Boston, Part 1

----

A family with a small c. 1830 story-and-a-half house asked me for advice - how to expand their home in keeping with its character.

We talked about their needs, the house constraints, the land. I suggested that a variation of "big house, little house, back house, barn" might be work. (The old jump rope rhyme refers to the massing of early New England farms. There is a book of that name describing the phenomenon.)
Back on my drafting board - after I had drawn up a sketch for the family and their contractor which reflected our discussion - I played a bit with the form. Here's what came out of it:


The floor plan provided to me was at 1/8" = 1'-0", very
small. However I later measured the house. The plan is accurate. See my post in May, 2013, for the elevations. I am happy to discuss the date of the house, if asked.

The first floor plan and a sketch of the house is here. The red line shows the outline of the original c. 1830 house plan.

The second drawing shows the original floor plan with - in red - the length of the side used as a radius for a circle.


The third drawing shows that a circle whose radius is the length of the
wall touches the 4 corners of the main house.The rectangle of the house
is determined by the circle. An arc using the same radius defines the
length of the wing, but not quite the width. The interior arcs of the
daisy wheel also define the small front entry. The 6 points of the 'daisy wheel' are shown, only 2 of the 6 'daisy petals' are drawn.

The house is simply built, perhaps by a farmer, not a joiner. Whoever he was, whatever education he had in construction, he knew circle geometry and used it to layout this house.

first picture of new entrance

The contractor called: the old door and its pediment were down, the new entrance was going up.
Of course, I showed up!

The original sheathing was exposed. But, almost no ghosting - the tell-tale signs of where the first entrance had been. Two boards showed evidence of a hand rail. A beam had been cut away a bit. Neither was enough to determine the original dimensions or profiles (the shape of the mouldings used). The contractor, joiner, and I all really wished there was more to look at, learn from.

The new door, sidelights and columns were in place. The men lifted the fanlight and its surround and set it above the door for me to see. The winter sunlight bouncing off the snow was brilliant.

Not bad.
But hard to see: so white in the winter sunshine, jarring between the pink house and the blue door. As I expected, it looked too new: not enough layers of paint. The mouldings seemed fine: the shadows in the right places. The columns attenuated as they should, the fan shape right, but was it too flat? The 2009 door and sidelight seemed out of place: clearly modern. I was so involved I couldn't see it!

For me, this is a common reaction. I won't go back now for a while. I'll turn down the road as if by accident, and come across the house unexpectedly - and see then how it feels.

the fan light for the new 1795 entrance

We had originally assumed the fanlight would be a Fypon composite. Fypon reproductions are based on real pieces, so we knew it would look OK. The only disconnect would be that the piece they copied would be generic, not specific to our entrance.

However, the Fypon fan was really bigger than what had been there originally. It made the entrance too tall. Listening to my frustration, Jack suggested he build a smaller fan from scratch - same cost to the owners. Excellent!

When the photograph of the entrance was blown up the shape of the fanlight could be seen as an arc with flat ends. Jack said this detail made it easier to assemble neatly to the sill above the door. Good.

So, back I went to the dimensions Jack needed to actually build this. He needed an arc with a radius for the fan... As I drew it, choosing a random semi-circle from my circle template, I stopped in surprise:
The circle which fit the arc of the fanlight, using the center of the door as its center, encompassed the whole entrance.
The squares, the overlapping Golden Section rectangles were clean. The circle centered on the entrance is not quite as clear. I love the way it covers the entrance to the house, protecting it. But it's not crisp. Do I have it right?

new 1795 entrance

More on the 1795 house entrance: 

  
One of the ways I come to understand a building is to measure it and then draw it on paper. Using a tape measure, a clipboard and a pen to record the space inside and out is, for me, a way to spend time sensing the character of a place. Putting those dimensions on paper lets me revisit and more clearly know what I saw and felt.

So, I measured the front of the 1795 house, and put it on paper. Then I looked at what was there using the proportions of the square and the rectangle derived from its diagonal.
And there was the pattern - each side of the house was a square. The windows on each side were also symmetrically placed on each side of the center of the square. That square is the determining shape and dimension for this house. You can see the squares marked on the first drawing.

In the second drawing you can see the arcs derived from the diagonal of the square. They determine the size of the center bay. (Yes, they don't meet exactly. However, considering that they are only 6" or so off over a building 38 feet long, that's pretty close.)

I was delighted. I knew then how wide the entrance had been, and not just because I'm an experienced architect with an 'educated eye'.