why does making it more narrow add to the design continuity?

I didn't say that making it narrower adds to the design continuity, I said that I had been focusing on the visual continuity, which they don't really care about.

Is this a single family home or are you converting to coops/condos?

all the drawings look exactly the same to me

I like #3 the best. The side facade on Option #1 seems too flat and the side facade on Option #2 loses the datum that the roof eave establishes. It also seems too extravagent for the side of a building and doesn't seem to match the 'barn' roof too well. Option #3 is a nice compromise...

I think you've done a good job off addressing the boxy look of the orginal plan with change in details. However, i think its a bit disingenuous to say that the size has been scaled back. Fron the pictures, it looks like you shaved 2ft from each side. Technically, this is subservient. But from certain angles, the size reduction is undistinguishable. My biggest issue is the whole 3rd floor of the addition. Just seems excessive.

For God's sake, they should be happy that you are taking the time and care to do something nice instead of half (more than half) the cray that is being built these days! That said, I like two and three.

I agree that it seems to be the third floor on the extension that gives it a sense of massiveness (or boxiness). It would seem more "natural" to have the extension have only two floors (I asked about the use in a post above because the three floors of the extension makes it look very much like an apartment building, rather than a single family home, to my eyes, which may make sense if you are trying to fit multiple units in the building. I am not sure of its expected use.)

Though you lose window space, and thus light, number one feels *right*. (IMHO). There's a balance created by repeating the same windows in the rear that's just not present in the second and third versions. The bay windows, while beautiful, seem to demand a lot of visual attention, making the side/rear of the house feel more like the facade. I know it's not what you want necessarily, but I agree with your estimation of it being the version landmarks will most likely approve.

Plus think of all the money you'll save on evergy costs!

You save on energy cost by not having bay windows? Explain please.

Disingenuous? I never said that the size was scaled back. I said that these new versions propose to make the extension narrower than the original building, as well as my previous proposals, by reducing the width on both sides.

# 1 I agree with anon at 4pm...The bays grab too much attention. You save energy cost Sandra because wall hold in heat and cold a ton better than windows.

I like proposal number 1 (probably because I'm a minimalist at heart), the other proposals aren't necessarily bad as much as the first one seems to be more aligned with the character of the original house as I think someone may have pointed out. the bay windows seem a tad bit excessive and facade like which I think someone else pointed out as well it seems slightly out of place on the side of the house given the look of the entire house. either way, considering the details you're putting into this stage alone I'm sure whatever decision you make will be great and I hope it works out of you because I really appreciate your posts, they're very extensive. by the way would it have been possible for bay windows to exist on this type of house during the time period in which it was built? I'm not too familiar with them aside from the ones on Queen Anne style brownstones... just wondering.

Congratulations on the insight! Honestly, I think you did the right thing in terms of getting an approval from LPC. As I mentioned about your earilier proposal and the lack of enthusiam from the Commission, you really needed to set the addition back a bit, at least on the visible side, and I think you definitely gave them something to work with. Question: have they asked for further setbacks in the rear? I mean, are they ok with the amount you have set it back? How many feet are you setting the addition back? They are a stickler for that kind of thing. The more the setback, the better. I am curious about what they said. As for bay windows, it was my experience from working at lpc that they only liked them if they were included on the building orginally. They are pretty conservative about incorporating new elements on historic buildings. Plus your home is so beautiful (or was and will be soon) without the bay windows. Good luck and let us know what they say.

In reference to the bay windows question anon 7:30, the fact that the building has gone through atleast three significant renovations since it was built in 1863 has meant that I haven't been able to peg Landmarks down to one style to use as a guide for proposed changes.

The turret on the front, which is arguably its most striking architectural feature, wasn't part of the original 1863 building, but was added in 1893. So Blk Buttrfly, even though bay windows would definately have fit in with atleast one of the three styles (Stick, Queen Anne, and Shingle) that it is comprised of, but it is possible that the LPC may have just not liked my proposed use of them. I'm not really sure.

At my last meeting with Landmarks, they were far more concerned about the width of the extension and it being subservient than they were about the depth. There was no mention of the depth specifically, and that input is what I used to make these plans.

I definately think that you are right that the more setbacks the I put on, the more the committee will like it. I am just trying to find a midpoint between how much they want me to take away, and how much I have to add on to hit the value projections I will need to hit to be able to keep this place.

When I was discussing set-backs, I was referring to the width of the extension. I agree that LPC does not really care about how long/deep the extension is, but is more concerned that the extension is not continuous (seamless - you know what I mean) with the original building. Plus they are not so into full-height rear yard additions. They really like to keep the original roof line. But your situation is somewhat different from the typical brownstone/rowhouse. Good luck and keep us posted. Am really curious to hear what they say.

Shahn- I finally walked by the house this weekend. To see it in person is even more amazing than the photos. Good luck- I cannot wait to see the finished product!