Buildings change over time, whether in appearance or function and one often affects the other. Sometimes changes are for access, protection from the elements, modernization, energy efficiency or maybe someone just wanted a change. Consider these entrance alterations as examples. Some entrances are seasonal, but others are meant to stay.
This example is shows the entrance to a restaurant (not shown in the photo is a small (obviously fake) chimney on the longer slope of the roofline of the entrance – like a cottage style). The building itself is the Hotel Vermont – historic image below.
As you can see, the entrance doesn’t exactly match the building. But it is located on the side, and not the front. What do you think?
Next, consider this shed roof front entrance addition in Johnson, VT. This entrance is likely for weather protection, and it appears that there was some attempt to blend it to the building. But the red clapboard, the shed roof, the obvious white gutter (which is only pouring water directly to the foundation), and the vinyl door… well, it leaves much to be desired. The historic integrity of this facade is obscured, as well as the streetscape.
Both of these examples are obvious additions. Do you find one more obtrusive than the other? In terms of streetscape and architectural integrity, I’d say the Johnson example is incompatible whereas the Burlington example is acceptable. Often this determination is dependent on which facade has the addition.
What do you think? And for either one, how would you improve it?